We compare key CDO assumptions from two departments within the same rating agency but with different financial incentives. Assumptions made by the ratings division are more favorable than those by the surveillance department. The differences are not explained by collateral switching during the ramp-up period, a long time gap between reports, nor the collapse of the CDO market in 2007 Additionally, CDOs rated with more favorable assumptions by the ratings group were more likely to be subsequently downgraded. As the useful signals from the surveillance group were seemingly ignored, these findings suggest rating agencies bias towards high ratings.

We investigate the conditions under which an intertemporal equilibrium model based on investors' portfolio decisions can explain the dynamics of high-frequency equity flows. Our model shows that, when there are barriers to international investment and when the expectations of foreign investors are more extrapolative than those of domestic investors (either due to foreigners being less informed or for behavioral reasons), unexpectedly high worldwide or local stock returns lead to net equity inflows in small countries. We investigate these predictions using daily data on net equity flows for nine emerging-market countries. Equity flows are positively related to host-country stock returns as well as market performance abroad at daily frequencies. Though these effects are remarkably robust at the daily frequency, they dissipate quickly.

Analyzing 916 collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), we find that a top credit rating agency frequently made positive adjustments beyond its main model that amounted to increasingly larger AAA tranche sizes. These adjustments are difficult to explain by likely determinants, but exhibit a clear pattern: CDOs with smaller model-implied AAA sizes receive larger adjustments. CDOs with larger adjustments experience more severe subsequent downgrading. Additionally, prior to April 2007, 91.2% of AAA-rated CDOs only comply with the credit rating agency's own AA default rate standard. Accounting for adjustments and the criterion deviation indicates that on average AAA tranches were structured to BBB support levels.

This paper examines the relationship between book‐to‐market equity, distress risk, and stock returns. Among firms with the highest distress risk as proxied by Ohlson's (1980) O‐score, the difference in returns between high and low book‐to market securities is more than twice as large as that in other firms. This large return differential cannot be explained by the three‐factor model or by differences in economic fundamentals. Consistent with mispricing arguments, firms with high distress risk exhibit the largest return reversals around earnings announcements, and the book‐to‐market effect is largest in small firms with low analyst coverage.

Ten years after the financial crisis, the central question of what explains the rise and fall in house prices remains unresolved. We provide a unified framework to examine four excess credit supply variables and three speculation variables that have been proposed in the literature. Credit supply variables, particularly subprime share and worse originator share, strongly relate to future zip-code-level house price changes in the boom and bust, whereas none of the speculation variables consistently relate to house prices within MSAs. Pre-trends, supply elasticity, and depressed areas suggest these relations are not driven by lenders anticipating house price growth.

This paper examines whether employees involved in residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) securitization experienced internal and external labor market consequences relative to similar non-RMBS employees in the same banks and why. Senior RMBS bankers experienced similar levels of job retention, promotion, and external job opportunities. Even signers of RMBS deals with high loss and misreporting rates or deals implicated in lawsuits experienced no adverse internal or external labor market outcomes. These findings are likely not explained by targeted or delayed employee discipline, small legal fines, or protection due to pending litigation but are consistent with implicit upper-management approval of RMBS activities.

Municipal bonds exhibit considerable retail pricing variation, even for same‐size trades of the same bond on the same day, and even from the same dealer. Markups vary widely across dealers. Trading strongly clusters on eighth price increments, and clustered trades exhibit higher markups. Yields are often lowered to just above salient numbers. Machine learning estimates exploiting the richness of the data show that dealers that use strategic pricing have systematically higher markups. Recent Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules have had only a limited impact on markups. While a subset of dealers focus on best execution, many dealers appear focused on opportunistic pricing.

In the $793 billion Paycheck Protection Program, we examine metrics related to potential misreporting including nonregistered businesses, multiple businesses at residential addresses, abnormally high implied compensation per employee, and large inconsistencies with jobs reported in another government program. These measures consistently concentrate in certain FinTech lenders and are cross‐verified by seven additional measures. FinTech market share increased significantly over time, and suspicious lending by FinTechs in 2021 is four times the level at the start of the program. Suspicious loans are being overwhelmingly forgiven at rates similar to other loans.

We examine whether macroeconomic risk can explain momentum profits internationally. Neither an unconditional model based on the Chen, Roll, and Ross (1986) factors nor a conditional forecasting model based on lagged instruments provides any evidence that macroeconomic risk variables can explain momentum. In addition, momentum profits around the world are economically large and statistically reliable in both good and bad economic states. Further, these momentum profits reverse over 1‐ to 5‐year horizons, an action inconsistent with existing risk‐based explanations of momentum.