We analyze proprietary internal capital allocation data from a large retail banking group consisting of member banks and a headquarters organization. We find that capital allocations from headquarters compensate for deposit shortfalls on the bank level, suggesting that the headquarters offers deposit smoothing to member banks. We then analyze how the distribution of influence within the group relates to capital allocations and lending behavior. More influential banks are allocated more funds from headquarters, and their loan growth is less sensitive to their deposit base. The effects of influence are stronger if banks have a greater demand for deposit smoothing.

We study whether option-implied jump risk premia can explain the high observed level of credit spreads. We use a structural jump-diffusion firm value model to assess the level of credit spreads generated by option-implied jump risk premia. Prices and returns of equity index and individual options are used to estimate the jump parameters. We further calibrate the model to historical information on default risk and the equity premium. The results show that incorporating option-implied jump risk premia brings predicted credit spread levels much closer to observed levels. The introduction of jumps also helps to improve the fit of the volatility of credit spreads and equity returns.

We examine U.S. dual- and single-class firms from 1980 to 2019 and document their valuation differences over their corporate life cycle. At the IPO, dual-class firms have higher mean valuations than do single-class firms, and some evidence indicates that this premium may emanate from dual-class firm founders’ unique vision and leadership skills. As firms age, the valuation premium of dual-class firms tends to dissipate, possibly because dual-class agency problems increase due to a gradual widening of the wedge (the difference between insider voting and cash flow rights) in the post-IPO years.

We document that stocks that have optimistic (pessimistic) consensus recommendations and are currently held by many short‐term institutions exhibit large stock‐return reversals: Their large past outperformance (underperformance) is followed by large negative (positive) future alphas. The predictable return reversals originate from overreaction to past recommendation releases and the correction of these overreactions around future releases. Results are stronger when earnings news is released and at firms with higher fundamental uncertainty. Further, firms with more short‐term institutions show stronger announcement returns and price drift after recommendation changes. Our results are consistent with models of higher order beliefs where short‐term institutions coordinate trading around public signals.

We introduce a new holdings-based procedure to identify whether a mutual fund has a benchmark discrepancy, which we define as a benchmark other than the prospectus benchmark best matching a fund’s investment strategy. We find that funds with a benchmark discrepancy tend to be riskier than their prospectus benchmarks indicate. As a result, the funds on average outperform their prospectus benchmarks, before further risk adjustments, despite underperforming the benchmarks that best match their portfolios.

We show that at-the-money implied volatility of options on futures of five-year Treasury notes (Treasury “yield implied volatility”) predicts both the growth rate and volatility of gross domestic product, as well as of other macroeconomic variables, like industrial production, consumption, and employment. This predictability is robust to controlling for the term spread, credit spread, stock returns, stock market implied volatility, and several other variables that prior literature showed to predict macroeconomic activity. Our results indicate that Treasury yield implied volatility is a useful forward-looking state variable to characterize risks and opportunities in the macro economy.

This paper revisits the association between firm value (as proxied by Tobin’s Q) and whether the firm has a staggered board. As is well known, in the cross-section firms with a staggered board tend to have a lower value. Using a comprehensive sample for 1978 – 2011, we show an opposite result in the time series: firms that adopt a staggered board increase in firm value, while de-staggering is associated with a decrease in firm value. We further show that the decision to adopt a staggered board seems endogenous, and related to an ex ante lower firm value, which helps reconciling the existing cross-sectional results to our novel time series results. To explain our new results, we explore potential incentive problems in the shareholder-manager relationship. Short-term oriented shareholders may generate myopic incentives for the firm to underinvest in risky long-term projects. In this case, a staggered board may helpfully insulate the board from opportunistic shareholder pressure. Consistent with this, we find that the adoption of a staggered board has a stronger positive association with firm value for firms where such incentive problems are likely more severe: firms with more R&D, more intangible assets, more innovative and larger and thus likely more complex firms.

This paper explores the economic role credit rating agencies play in the corporate bond market. We consider three existing theories about multiple ratings: information production, rating shopping, and regulatory certification. Using differences in rating composition, default prediction, and credit spread changes, our evidence only supports regulatory certification. Marginal, additional credit ratings are more likely to occur because of, and seem to matter primarily for, regulatory purposes. They do not seem to provide significant additional information related to credit quality.

The unique regulation of U.S. public pension funds links their liability discount rate to the expected return on assets, which gives them incentives to invest more in risky assets in order to report a better funding status. Comparing public and private pension funds in the United States, Canada, and Europe, we find that U.S. public pension funds act on their regulatory incentives. U.S. public pension funds with a higher level of underfunding per participant, as well as

We use a unique database on ownership stakes of equity mutual fund directors to analyze whether the directors’ incentive structure is related to fund performance. Ownership of both independent and nonindependent directors plays an economically and statistically significant role. Funds in which directors have low ownership, or “skin in the game,” significantly underperform. We posit two economic mechanisms to explain this relation. First, lack of ownership could indicate a director’s lack of alignment with fund shareholder interests. Second, directors may have superior private information on future performance. We find evidence in support of the first and against the second mechanism.