We examine changes in corporate policies following recessions during CEO tenures to evaluate the value of learning. CEOs with recession experience demonstrate expertise in risk-shifting strategies that can contribute to higher firm value and performance during subsequent recessions. Specifically, Recession CEOs use conservative capital structure and allocation during expansions, providing excess capacity and financial slack to accumulate additional cash reserves during economic contractions, resulting in lower bankruptcy risk. As a result, Recession CEOs are equipped to raise more capital in recessions, which results in higher asset growth fueled by investments in acquisitions and capital expenditures. We also examine prior recessions and find poor performers learn to invest more and perform better in subsequent contractions. Our results are strengthened through cumulative recession experiences, when downturns are deeper, and at cyclical firms, where economic cycles are most impactful and Recession CEOs are more relevant. Finally, we use time-varying industry downturns, matching, and CEO turnovers for inference. Overall, we offer novel evidence of valuable CEO learning around risk-taking following direct managerial experience as a firm policy determinant across economic conditions.

School policies that cause a large demand shift between public and private schooling may cause some private schools to enter or exit the market. We study how the policy effects differ under a fixed versus changing market structure in the context of a public school funding reform in New York City. We find evidence of a reduction in private schools in response to the reform. Using a model of demand for and supply of private schooling, we estimate that 20 percent of the reform’s effect on school enrollments came from increased private school exit and reduced private school entry.

This paper examines the impact of manufacturing employment decline on the socioeconomic outcomes within and between black and white americans since 1960. The analysis shows that manufacturing decline had a negative impact on blacks in terms of their wages, employment, marriage rates, house values, poverty rates, death rates, single parenthood, teen motherhood, child poverty, and child mortality. In addition, the decline in manufacturing increased inequality within the black community for wages and other outcomes. Similar patterns are found for whites, but to a lesser degree—leading to larger gaps between whites and blacks in wages, marriage patterns, poverty, single-parenthood, and death rates.

This article develops a tractable theoretical framework for the Top Trading Cycles (TTC) mechanism for school choice that allows quantifying welfare and optimizing policy decisions. We compute welfare for TTC and Deferred Acceptance (DA) under different priority structures and find that the choice of priorities can have larger welfare implications than the choice of mechanism. We solve for the welfare-maximizing distributions of school quality for parametrized economies and find that optimal investment decisions can be very different under TTC and DA. Our framework relies on a novel characterization of the TTC assignment in terms of a cutoff for each pair of schools. These cutoffs parallel prices in competitive equilibrium, with students’ priorities serving the role of endowments. We show that these cutoffs can be computed directly from the distribution of preferences and priorities in a continuum model and derive closed-form solutions and comparative statics for parameterized settings. The TTC cutoffs not only clarify the role of priorities in determining the TTC assignment but also demonstrate that TTC is more complicated than DA.

Prospect theory is often used to predict individuals’ risky tax decisions. For example, individuals who are in a tax due (refund) position are predicted to engage in more (less) tax noncompliance. This is known as the “withholding phenomenon”. However, tax noncompliance is not just risky, it is also unethical. We hypothesize that because there is an ethical component inherent in this risky decision, the feelings described by prospect theory are insufficient to cause increased risk-seeking. In a series of experiments, we show that moral disengagement is the primary theoretical mechanism that explains noncompliant tax behavior. The feelings evoked from being in a loss domain provide motivation for individuals to morally disengage, while moral disengagement is directly related to noncompliant tax behavior. We also develop an intervention that deters individuals from morally disengaging, specifically when they are in a tax due position. These results have important practical and theoretical implications.

Recent research suggests that the share of US households living on less than $2/person/day is high and rising. We reexamine such extreme poverty by linking SIPP and CPS data to administrative tax and program data. We find that more than 90% of those reported to be in extreme poverty are not, once we include in-kind transfers, replace survey reports of earnings and transfer receipt with administrative records, and account for ownership of substantial assets. More than half of all misclassified households have incomes from the administrative data above the poverty line, and many have middle-class measures of material well-being.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that a male favoring pay gap exists in every one of its member countries. To reduce the gender pay gap, governments and investors are demanding that companies disclose gender pay information. While companies seem to resist these demands, there is little evidence about how investors might react to the disclosure of gender pay information. We draw on theories of fairness and the instrumental perspective of corporate social responsibility activities to predict how the disclosure of gender pay information influences investor judgments. Our experimental findings indicate investors are more willing to invest in a company that discloses gender pay equity compared to either a company disclosing a gender pay gap or one disclosing no gender pay information. Further, our mediation analyses results show a sequential mediation process whereby the gender pay disclosure affects perceptions of fairness (economic consequences) directly (indirectly through fairness), with only perceptions of the economic consequences resulting from the gender pay disclosure directly influencing willingness to invest. In addition, despite the presence of the same sequential mediation relationship, we find limited evidence investors are less willing to invest in a company that discloses a typical gender pay gap compared to a company disclosing no gender pay information. Two additional experiments indicate it is the information about gender pay, not its disclosure by the company, that influences investors; and the effect is intentional. Our results are consistent with investors anticipating real economic consequences from the disclosure of gender pay information.

An extensive stream of literature investigates how product market competition, by increasing the proprietary costs of disclosure, influences corporate disclosure policy. We hypothesize that the proprietary costs incurred by firms are associated with how a disclosure is framed and structured. We predict and find that the intensity of competition in the product market is associated with more negative and uncertain earnings conference calls. We also find evidence of firms “casting calls” by emphasizing more pessimistic analysts’ questions. Our results are robust to matched analyses on cash flow uncertainty and to examining the casting of analysts, as opposed to their questions, on the earnings call. Finally, we find consistent results using alternative measures of linguistic structure and in an alternative channel of disclosure with an alternative measure of linguistic framing. Our results demonstrate that firms attempt to mitigate proprietary costs by managing discretionary disclosure structure and framing their conference calls.

We examine the participation of analysts from different buy-side institutions (hedge funds, mutual funds, and RIAs) in public earnings conference calls and the associated capital market implications. Using 81,652 conference call transcripts for 3346 companies from 2007 to 2016, we find that buy-side analysts ask questions on approximately 18% of calls. Relative to sell-side analysts, buy-side analysts' interactions with management are shorter, convey less favorable tone, and exhibit more uncertainty. Buy-side activity on earnings calls is also associated with subsequent reductions in sell-side coverage, and buy-side tone is associated with sell-side analysts' price target revisions after the call. Importantly, our findings suggest that buy-side analysts representing a hedge fund play an important and unique role on conference calls. Specifically, hedge fund analysts represent nearly half (47%) of all buy-side appearances. In addition, when short interest in the firm is high, analysts representing a hedge fund are less likely to be permitted to ask the first question on the call, to ask lengthy questions, or to ask additional follow-up questions. Relatedly, relative to other buy-side analysts, the information conveyed by hedge fund analysts during the call is more strongly associated with both stock returns and investor uncertainty following the call.