It is often the case in default modeling that the need arises to calibrate a model to some prior probability of default. In many situations, a researcher may not know the true prior default rate for the population because the data set at hand is itself incomplete, either with respect to default identification (hidden defaults) or default under reporting. In situations where a researcher has access to two incomplete default data sets, for example in the case of two banks that have merged, it is possible to infer the number of “missing” defaults, which we demonstrate in this short note. We discuss an approach to estimating this quantity and show an example in which we infer the number of missing defaults in the combined legacy databases of the former Moody’s Risk Management Services and the former KMV Corporation. While calibration is one application of this approach, the method is a general one that can be applied in other settings as well.

This paper studies the nature of capital adjustment at the plant-level. We use an indirect inference procedure to estimate the structural parameters of a rich specification of capital adjustment costs. In effect, the parameters are optimally chosen to reproduce

In this article, we provide a novel rationale for credit ratings. The rationale that we propose is that credit ratings serve as a coordinating mechanism in situations where multiple equilibria can obtain. We show that credit ratings provide a "focal point" for firms and their investors, and explore the vital, but previously overlooked implicit contractual relationship between a credit rating agency (CRA) and a firm through its credit watch procedures. Credit ratings can help fix the desired equilibrium and as such play an economically meaningful role. Our model provides several empirical predictions and insights regarding the expected price impact of rating changes.

Abstract This study examines the behavioral impact of an information system, and how that impact varies with the information system's precision, in an internal reporting environment. We propose that a manager's reporting decisions are affected by his or her trade‐off of the benefits of appearing honest against the benefits of misrepresentation. The information system affects the manager's trade‐off by improving the owner's ability to make an inference regarding the manager's level of honesty. Thus, to the extent that the manager perceives benefits to appearing honest, the presence of an information system can increase managerial honesty. As the information system becomes more precise, however, the manager must forgo greater benefits of misrepresentation in order to achieve the same appearance of honesty. For managers under a precise system, this will shift the trade‐off decision toward the benefits of misrepresentation and away from the benefits of appearing honest. Notably, in our experiment, the only benefit of appearing honest is an intrinsically motivated desire for social approval. We find that, although the existence of an information system increases managerial honesty, honesty is lower under a precise than under a coarse information system. We also compare profit earned by the owners in our experiment, which relies on a behavioral role of an information system, with the maximum profit theoretically possible given a contractual use of the information system. This comparison suggests that, unless the available information system is sufficiently precise, the owner will obtain greater profits by not contracting on its output, even if that output is fully contractible.

We develop a simple model of the effect of public transaction reporting on trade execution costs and test it using a sample of institutional trades in corporate bonds, before and after initiation of the TRACE reporting system. Trade execution costs fell approximately 50% for bonds eligible for TRACE transaction reporting, and 20% for bonds not eligible for TRACE reporting, suggesting the presence of a “liquidity externality.” The key results are robust to changes in variables, such as interest rate volatility and trading activity that might also affect execution costs. Market shares and the cost advantage to large dealers decreased post-TRACE. These results indicate that market design can have first-order effects, even for sophisticated institutional customers.

We examine market behavior around earnings announcements to understand the consequences of the increased disclosure that non-U.S. firms face when listing shares in the U.S. We find that absolute return and volume reactions to earnings announcements typically increase significantly once a company cross-lists in the U.S. Furthermore, these increases are greatest for firms from developed countries and for firms that pursue over-the-counter listings or private placements, which do not have stringent disclosure requirements. Additional tests support the hypothesis that it is changes in the individual firm's disclosure environment, rather than changes in its market liquidity, ownership, or trading venue, that explain our findings.

The determination of how to distinguish between unemployment and nonparticipation is important and controversial. The conventional approach employs a priori reasoning together with self-reported current behavior. This paper employs an evidence-based classification of labor force status using information about the consequences of the behavior of the nonemployed. We find that marginal attachment—defined as desiring work, although not searching—is a distinct labor market state, lying between those who do not desire work and the unemployed. Furthermore, important heterogeneities exist within these nonemployment states. Two subsets of nonparticipants—both engaged in waiting—display behavior similar to the unemployed.

We examine whether information in footnotes might lack reliability because auditors permit more misstatement in disclosed, as opposed to recognized, amounts. In both the stock-compensation and lease settings, audit partners require greater correction of misstatements in recognized amounts than in the equivalent disclosed amounts. Debriefing questions indicate that the partners make these decisions knowingly, even though they expect greater client resistance to correcting recognized amounts, because they view recognized amounts as more material. Partners also spend more time on correction decisions for recognized information. While prior literature suggests that amounts are often relegated to footnotes because they are less reliable, our results suggest that the actual choice to disclose versus recognize can also reduce information reliability. These results have implications for the interpretation of prior research on the reliability of recognized and disclosed numbers, for financial-accounting standard setters who may want to consider the reliability effects of their recognition versus disclosure decisions, and for auditing standard setters who may wish to clarify auditors' responsibilities for preventing misstatements in disclosed amounts.