Homeowners insurance is central to managing the rising losses from climate‐related disasters. We show that insurance premiums are subject to starkly different regulations across states, creating persistent cross‐subsidies and price distortions. We employ states' regulatory rules in an instrumental variable estimation and a border discontinuity design to show insurers do not adjust rates in highly regulated states and compensate by raising rates in less regulated states. Rates and risks diverge in the long run, distorting cross‐state risk‐sharing and increasing insurer exits from highly regulated states. We argue these patterns stem from the interactions between rate regulation and insurers' financing constraints

We argue that heightened regulation on large banks contributed to the rise in fragility of smaller banks revealed by the 2023 regional bank crisis. In 2018, regulators restricted Wells Fargo, the third largest U.S. bank, from growing its total assets. We estimate this asset cap led Wells Fargo to give up deposits amounting to 2.2% of aggregate bank deposits. These deposits, primarily uninsured, were reallocated to banks geographically proximate to Wells Fargo, including smaller, less regulated banks. In turn, these banks experienced higher deposit outflows once monetary tightening commenced and saw their stock prices plummet during the 2023 stress

We model credibility challenges financial regulators often face when disclosing bank stress test results. Since disclosures influence banks’ risk-taking and depositors’ withdrawal decisions, regulators may have incentives to misreport. We show that regulators can reveal results credibly through imprecise disclosures to both banks and depositors. The regulator reveals only the range or the interval in which the result lies. Crucially, our findings indicate that stress test results can be disclosed credibly without assuming that the regulator is committed to truthful disclosure

Policymakers claim that combating tax avoidance can help reduce industry concentration by leveling the playing field between industry leaders and their competitors. We test the validity of this claim by using administrative data on industry concentration and exploiting the staggered introduction of anti-tax avoidance regulations across 17 European countries. Although these regulations significantly reduce tax avoidance, we find no statistically or economically meaningful effect on industry concentration. Further tests indicate that our nonresults stem from a genuine lack of effect rather than a lack of statistical power and that our inferences are robust to multiple research designs. The sole exception is in industries with both high levels of leader tax-avoidance advantages and multinational presence, but even in these industries, effect sizes are modest and fall short of regulatory benchmarks. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the idea that broad-based anti-tax avoidance regulations can materially influence industry concentration

This paper examines the effect of financial regulation on nonfinancial violations. Using differences in compliance requirements with Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) Section 404, we find that adoption of Section 404 increased firms’ propensity for nonfinancial violations. This effect is stronger for firms with greater external scrutiny toward their financial reporting, greater challenges in monitoring their operations, and limited resources. These results, together with an examination of changes in audit fees, conference call transcripts, and 10-K disclosures, suggest that the effects primarily stem from a shift in attention and resources toward SOX 404. Further, the effects are concentrated in employee-related violations and persist for approximately two years. Overall, our results suggest that financial reporting regulation can result in unintended consequences harming stakeholders, such as employees

This paper examines CEO pay at nonprofits. Using compensation data for 14,111 nonprofits, we find that CEO pay dropped by 2% after legislation in New York reduced CEOs’ ability to influence their own pay. Despite lower pay, CEOs exerted more effort, and nonprofit performance improved. The effects were stronger at commercial nonprofits than at charities and for male CEOs than female CEOs. These findings are consistent with a model where some nonprofit CEOs derive meaning from their work and compensation can be rigged. Overall, our results suggest that regulation that targets the pay-setting process can improve organizational outcomes at nonprofits

We investigate whether prior employment connections influence the strictness of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing review process. Using novel data on over 250 accountants at the SEC, we define connected examiners as accountants reviewing financial statements audited by their former employer. We find that SEC review teams with a higher percentage of connected examiners are less likely to detect financial statement errors, raise fewer substantive issues, and are less likely to push back on registrants’ responses to comment letters. Our estimates also indicate that the effect of examiners’ prior employment connections is strongest earlier in their SEC tenure and attenuates with time. Our findings provide important practical insights on the boundaries of the revolving door between regulators and the regulated, suggesting that even indirect connections can impact oversight

Using the adoption of Zombie Property Laws (ZL) across several US states, we show that requiring lenders to maintain properties in the foreclosure process affects mortgage lending decisions and standards. Difference-in-differences estimations using a state border design show that ZL incentivizes lenders to screen mortgage applications more carefully: they deny more applications and impose higher interest rates on originated loans, especially risky loans. In turn, these loans exhibit higher ex post performance. ZL also affects lender behavior after borrowers become distressed, causing them to strategically keep delinquent mortgages alive. Our findings inform the debate on policy responses to foreclosure crises.

On-the-job training is a key driver of human capital development (Becker, 1962). We argue that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), aimed at strengthening auditor independence, changed the economics of public accounting and unintentionally reduced opportunities for accountants to invest in their human capital on the job. SOX barred public accounting firms from offering consulting services to audit clients and introduced barriers to accountants transitioning to client firms. This weakened opportunities for collaboration between audit and consulting, limited accountants’ exposure to addressing clients’ business problems, and reduced networking. This diminished opportunities for accountants to gain broad experience, develop skills, and grow professional networks, making the accounting profession less attractive, especially to top talent. Using individual-level data, we compare accountants (treated group) and consultants (benchmark group) before and after SOX, within the same public accounting firm, time, and location. After SOX, accountants were less likely to move into consulting roles or to clients of their audit firms, and their wages declined. Consistent with reduced career opportunities discouraging accounting education, we find a drop in the quality of students declaring accounting majors after SOX. Importantly, to more directly connect career opportunities to university accounting enrollments, we show that when university alumni transitions from public accounting to consulting decline, both the quantity and quality of subsequent accounting enrollments at their alma maters drop. We uncover a previously overlooked cost of regulations concerning the accounting profession

Regulators condition bank capital on risk but struggle to measure risk accurately. Capital requirements thus rely on inputs from banks’ internal risk models, and banks have discretion over modeling choices. Using novel hand-collected data we show that reported bank risk varies systematically with simulation method, holding period, and historical data size. Hence, modeling choices can be a significant channel of underreporting of risk. Consistent with this presumption we find that less-capitalized banks tend to choose less conservative methods. Moreover, banks using a softer simulation method display higher actual market risk, while reporting lower market risk to regulators