This paper examines whether the sensitivity of local government credit ratings to external signals about the local economy varies with the quality of the governments' financial reports. We find the credit ratings of local governments that are required to comply with GAAP are less sensitive to changes in local home values than similarly affected governments that are not required to comply with GAAP. Further, we show that GAAP's moderating role increased after Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 34 substantially improved the quality of GAAP‐compliant governments' financial reports, which helps to attribute the main findings to reporting quality. To understand the mechanism, we study positive and negative economic signals separately. The results are pronounced when the change in home values is negative, consistent with reporting quality decreasing the rating agency's uncertainty about local governments' preexisting likelihood of default. We conclude that credit rating agencies are less sensitive to local economic signals when the local government's financial reports are of higher quality.

Substantial evidence suggests that regulatory agencies in the United States can be captured by the politicians who oversee them. We provide novel evidence of a federal agency in which capture is limited: the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although patent applications from politically connected applicants are slightly more likely to be approved despite being of lower ex post quality, additional analyses suggest these outcomes are not indicative of capture. In particular, the disclosure quality of connected patents' legal claims increases more than unconnected patents during the review process, narrowing the scope of the patents and constraining the intellectual property rights. Furthermore, connected patents are no more likely than others to be litigated ex post, suggesting these patent grants are not spurious. Our findings provide insights into how the design of a regulator can limit the benefits that accrue to politically connected firms.

This paper examines which municipal disclosures provide informational value to investors. Using the entire universe of post-issuance financial and event disclosures from 2009 to 2022, we find that most municipal bonds do not trade in the weeks following a disclosure. However, some disclosures do provide enough new information to increase trading. Investors trade more on credit-relevant disclosures, such as adverse credit event disclosures, and less on required annual financial statements. Trading after disclosures also increases more when a bond is large or risky. Moreover, we find that credit rating agencies respond to disclosures, lending support to the idea that some disclosures have informational value. In further analyses, we find that trading before the disclosure, lack of timeliness, illiquidity, and information processing constraints contribute to the limited trading on the average disclosure. The findings suggest that reconsidering a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating post-issuance municipal disclosures may be worthwhile.