Abstract This study finds that investors price firms' greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions as a negative component of equity value, and this valuation discount does not differ between firms that voluntarily disclose to the Carbon Disclosure Project ( CDP ) and nondisclosing firms. We derive the GHG emissions for nondisclosers from an estimation model that incorporates firm characteristics and industry. The finding that investors view CDP amounts and estimates of emissions as equally value‐relevant suggests that equity values reflect GHG information from channels other than the CDP . An event study of investors' response to emission‐related information in firms' 8‐K filings further supports this finding. Economically, our results suggest that, for the median S&P 500 firm, GHG emissions impose a market‐implied equity discount of $79 per ton, representing about one‐half of 1 percent of market capitalization.

This paper examines the adjustments in a firm's common stock price during the eleven months before and during the month of announcement of a bond rating change. Based on several different measures of abnormal security return, the findings are consistent with the proposition that bond downgradings convey information to common stockholders. For bond upgradings, the price adjustments were statistically insignificant in the month of announcement, although in the eleven preceding months, upgraded firms exhibited positive abnormal returns. While the results do not fully support earlier research, we stress that the main contribution of this article lies in the scrutiny it gives to issues of methodology in assessing the possible price effects of bond reclassifications.

ABSTRACT This paper examines the adjustments in a firm's common stock price during the eleven months before and during the month of announcement of a bond rating change. Based on several different measures of abnormal security return, the findings are consistent with the proposition that bond downgradings convey information to common stockholders. For bond upgradings, the price adjustments were statistically insignificant in the month of announcement, although in the eleven preceding months, upgraded firms exhibited positive abnormal returns. While the results do not fully support earlier research, we stress that the main contribution of this article lies in the scrutiny it gives to issues of methodology in assessing the possible price effects of bond reclassifications.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has classified sustainability topics as material or not material for investors. We leverage the staggered release of the SASB classifications from 2013 to 2016 to examine whether and how they prompt changes in U.S. firms' sustainability performance. We measure sustainability performance using RepRisk scores, which reflect environmental, social, and governance (ESG) incidents. We find that RepRisk scores on sustainability topics classified as material decrease following the release of SASB classifications. Conversely, incident scores on nonmaterial sustainability topics increase. This suggests that firms improve their sustainability performance on topics the SASB deems relevant for investors while simultaneously performing worse on irrelevant topics. Firms adjust their internal sustainability policies to mirror these changes. The changes in sustainability performance occur primarily through two channels. We document that higher exposure to the classifications from shareholder pressure and sustainability-linked executive compensation prompts managers to prioritize sustainability topics classified as relevant for investors over irrelevant ones.

ABSTRACT We examine whether proprietary costs drive R&D-active firms' choice of private loan structure. We find that R&D-active firms are more likely to choose single-lender over multi-lender private loan financing. This is consistent with the theory that high-ability entrepreneurs protect their proprietary knowledge by communicating it to a single lender while disclosing generic and less sensitive information to the public. This propensity, however, significantly decreases after the enactment of the American Inventor's Protection Act (AIPA), which accelerated public disclosure of firms' patent details in filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This accelerated public disclosure potentially caused R&D information to spill over to rivals, increasing the proprietary costs of single-lender borrowers. AIPA enactment also increased the spread on R&D-active firms' single-lender loans. These findings contribute to the voluntary disclosure and financing choice literature by linking R&D-active firms' choice of single-lender financing to the proprietary costs of public disclosure. Data Availability: From public sources identified in the study. JEL Classifications: G12; G14; G21; M41.