We test the hypothesis that low-visibility shocks to text-based network industry peers can explain industry momentum. We consider industry peer firms identified through 10-K product text and focus on economic peer links that do not share common Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Shocks to less visible peers generate economically large momentum profits and are stronger than own-firm momentum variables. More visible traditional SIC-based peers generate only small, short-lived momentum profits. Our findings are consistent with momentum profits arising partially from inattention to economic links of less visible industry peers.

We exploit Medicare national coverage reimbursement approvals as a quasi-natural experiment to investigate how the financing decisions of private and publicly traded firms respond to changes in investment opportunities. We find that publicly traded companies increase their external financing and their subsequent product introductions by more than private companies in response to national coverage approvals. Private equity financing is the primary source of the increased financing for public firms. We show that the stock characteristics of publicly traded firms, such as liquidity and price informativeness, and product market competition are important factors in explaining their financing advantage.

We provide a model and empirical tests showing how an active acquisition market affects firm incentives to innovate and conduct R&D. Our model shows that small firms optimally may decide to innovate more when they can sell out to larger firms. Large firms may find it disadvantageous to engage in an “R&D race” with small firms, as they can obtain access to innovation through acquisition. Our model and evidence also show that the R&D responsiveness of firms increases with demand, competition, and industry merger and acquisition activity. All of these effects are stronger for smaller firms than for larger firms.

We examine whether sharp debt increases through leveraged buyouts and recapitalizations interact with market structure to influence plant closing and investment decisions of recapitalizing firms and their rivals. We take into account the fact that recapitalizations and investment decisions are both endogenous and may be simultaneously influenced by the same exogenous events. Following their recapitalizations, firms in industries with high concentration are more likely to close plants and less likely to invest. Rival firms are less likely to close plants and more likely to invest when the market share of leveraged firms is higher.

We examine whether industry product market conditions are important in assessing the benefits and costs of chief executive officer (CEO) power. We find that firms are more likely to have powerful CEOs in high demand product markets where firms are facing entry threats. In these markets, investors react favorably to announcements granting more power to CEOs, and CEO power is associated with higher market value, sales growth, investment, advertising, and the introduction of more new products. Our results remain significant when addressing the endogeneity of CEO power by instrumenting CEO power with past non-CEO executive and director sudden deaths.

We empirically establish that unemployed individuals maintain significant access to credit and that upon a layoff, the unconstrained borrow while the constrained default and delever. Motivated by these findings, we develop a theory of credit lines and labor income risk to analyze optimal transfers to the unemployed. Since credit lines offer fixed interest rates and limits, credit lines are unresponsive to layoffs and provide greater consumption insurance relative to when debt is repriced period by period. At US levels of credit lines, the government can optimally reduce transfers to the unemployed, whereas this is not true when debt is counterfactually repriced period by period.

Abstract We study how risk management through hedging affects firms and competition among firms in the life insurance industry, an industry with over 7 trillion in assets and over 1,000 private and public firms. We examine firms after a staggered state-level reform that reduces the costs of hedging by granting derivatives superpriority in case of insolvency. We show that firms that are likely to face costly external finance increase hedging and reduce risk and the probability of receivership. Firms that are likely to face costly external finance also lower prices, increase policy sales, and increase their market share post-reform.

We examine how consumer credit affects entrepreneurship by linking three million earnings and pass-through tax records to credit reports. In the cross-section, we show that self-employment without employees and employer firm ownership increase monotonically with credit limits and credit scores. We then isolate individuals who have had discrete increases in credit limits after the exogenous removal of bankruptcy flags to measure the effects of personal credit on entrepreneurship. Following bankruptcy flag removal, individuals are more likely to start a new employer business and borrow extensively. Those who own businesses with employees borrow $40,000 more after bankruptcy flag removal, a 33% gain relative to the sample average.

ABSTRACT We provide evidence using firm 10‐Ks that over the past 30 years, U.S. firms have expanded their scope of operations. Increases in scope were achieved largely without increasing traditional operating segments. Scope expansion significantly increases valuation and is realized primarily through acquisitions and investment in R&D, but not through capital expenditures. Traditional concentration ratios do not capture this expansion of scope. Our findings point to a new type of firm that increases scope through related expansion, which is highly valued by the market.

We examine the impact of lost intellectual property protection on innovation, competition, firm performance, and valuation. We consider firms whose ability to protect intellectual property (IP) using patents is weakened following a major Supreme Court decision. We use large language models (LLM) to identify firms’ patent portfolios’ exposure to this decision and find an unequal impact. Large firms gain and small firms lose. Large impacted firms benefit as their sales growth increases and their exposure to lawsuits decreases. Small impacted firms lose as they face increased competition, product-market encroachment, and lower profits and valuations. They increase R&D and nondisclosure agreements.