Abstract This study examines whether three factors—the transparency of expense disclosures, donor evaluation focus, and organization performance—influence how directors monitor management expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. An experiment with 189 nonprofit directors finds that the enhanced transparency of expense disclosures increases director monitoring by reducing the tendency to accept management expense misreporting. Further, an organization's nonfinancial performance and the perceived fairness of donor evaluation focus interact to influence director monitoring practices. Specifically, when directors know an organization's nonfinancial performance is poor and understand that this performance will negatively influence the willingness of donors to contribute, directors monitor less if they think that donors are adopting a more balanced approach to organizational evaluation that focuses on both financial and nonfinancial performance; that is, there is a reverse fair process effect as this donor approach is perceived as being fairer than if donors focus solely on financial performance. However, monitoring is equally strong regardless of donor evaluation focus when directors know that an organization's nonfinancial performance is good and a donation is forthcoming.

This paper investigates the effect that employee treatment schemes have on corporate innovation performance. We find that firms with better employee treatment schemes produce more and better patents through improving employee satisfaction and teamwork. Additional tests suggest that our main findings cannot be attributed to job security, unionization, reverse causality, and omitted variables. We also find that firms with better employee treatment schemes produce patents that enhance market valuation and facilitate better future operating performance. Collectively, our findings show that treating employees well benefits firms and shareholders, for well treated employees are encouraged to create intellectual property.

Time-to-build, time-to-produce, and inventory have important implications for asset prices and quantity dynamics in a general equilibrium model with recursive preferences. Time-to-build captures the delay in transforming new investments into productive capital, and time-to-produce captures the delay in transforming productive capital into output. Both delays increase risks in that time-to-build generates procyclical payouts, whereas the time-to-produce amplifies this procyclicality. Inventory smooths consumption and helps capture interest rate volatility even when the elasticity of intertemporal substitution is small. The model is consistent with a high equity premium, a high stock return volatility, and lead-lag relations between asset prices and macroeconomic quantities.

We explore a new mechanism by which investors take correlated shortcuts and present evidence that managers—using sales management—take advantage of these shortcuts. Specifically, we exploit a regulatory provision wherein a firm's primary industry is determined by the highest sales segment. Exploiting this regulation, we provide evidence that investors classify operationally nearly identical firms as starkly different depending on their placement around this sales cutoff. Moreover, managers appear to exploit this by manipulating sales to be just over the cutoff in favorable industries. Further evidence suggests that managers engage in activities to realize large, tangible benefits from this opportunistic action.

Did regulatory reforms that lowered barriers to competition increase or decrease the quality of information that banks disclose to the public? By integrating the gravity model of investment with the state-specific process of bank deregulation that occurred in the United States from the 1980s through the 1990s, we develop a bank-specific, time-varying measure of deregulation-induced competition. We find that an intensification of competition reduced abnormal accruals of loan loss provisions and the frequency with which banks restate financial statements. The results suggest that competition reduces bank opacity, potentially enhancing the ability of markets to monitor banks.

This study analyzes the role of corporate governance in the relationship among credit, interest rate, and liquidity risks encountered by banks. In particular, the study investigates how banks make the trade-offs among these risks under the maturity transformation business model. The sample consists of banks in 43 countries over the period of 2002–2010. Results show that credit, interest rate, and liquidity risks are related to one another, and that the interactions among them can be reduced by corporate governance and regulations. During the regular yield curve spread (YCS) period, management-controlled banks take less credit risk and even less liquidity risk whereas shareholder-controlled banks encounter more liquidity risk as they pursue more interest rate risk. During the inverted YCS period, management-controlled banks still opt for less credit risk-taking, but shareholder-controlled banks are greatly exposed to risks and should thus be monitored by concerned authorities.

Using a sample of banks from 56 countries, this paper investigates the lending behavior of government banks during the crisis of 2008, and its association with bank performance and the economy. Contrary to the traditional wisdom, we find that government banks can play a beneficial role under certain circumstances. Government banks have higher loan growth rates than private banks during the crisis. In countries with low corruption, the increased lending by government banks is associated with better bank performance and more favorable GDP and employment growth in the crisis period. In contrast, the results for countries with high corruption are more consistent with the political view: the increased lending by government banks is associated with underperformance relative to private banks, and creates no beneficial effects on either GDP growth or employment.

Based on data from 32 countries over the period 1996–2010, this paper is the first to assess the relationship between financial innovation, on the one hand, and bank growth and fragility, as well as economic growth, on the other hand. We find that different measures of financial innovation, capturing both a broad concept and specific innovations, are associated with faster bank growth, but also higher bank fragility and worse bank performance during the recent crisis. These effects are stronger in countries with larger securities markets and more restrictive regulatory frameworks. In spite of these seemingly ambiguous findings, our evidence points to a positive net effect of financial innovation on economic growth: financial innovation is associated with higher growth in countries and industries with better growth opportunities.

By examining cross-country data for the period from 2000 to 2010, this study investigates whether monitoring by the media affects the performance of government-owned banks (GOBs). The results indicate that GOBs under strong monitoring do not underperform privately owned banks (POBs), whereas those under weak monitoring do underperform POBs. Further, we find that the strength of the media's monitoring has an important effect on corruption behavior and banks’ performance. This result provides an important policy implication that the government should minimize its ownership, and therefore its influence, in the media sector if it intends to improve the performance of its GOBs.

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether banks respond to financial misreporting as the borrowing firms release misstated financial reports, i.e., in the misreporting period. Drawing upon finance theory that recognizes banks' superior information access and processing abilities, this study predicts and finds that banks adjust loan contract terms in response to the ongoing misreporting. Compared with loans issued in the prior period, loans issued in the misreporting period have higher interest spread, are more likely to be secured by collateral, and have more restrictive covenants. Further analyses show that banks acquire indirect, rather than direct, information about the misreporting and that they do not fully adjust loan pricing until after the restatement announcement. Together, these findings suggest that banks make timely, but insufficient, adjustments during the misreporting period. Nevertheless, banks' early reactions appear to be unique, as equity investors do not respond to the ongoing misreporting, but react to the loan information when it becomes public. JEL Classifications: D82; G21; M41.