We investigate the capital structure of pioneering startup firms, which are frequently credited with opening new markets and niches in the digital era and often face the threat of the potential entry of successful, cash-rich firms from adjacent markets. Our analysis is made in the context of a winner-take-all competition in the form of an all-pay auction for the monopolistic position in a new market. We show that a pioneer's optimal capital structure exhibits widespread diversity and is determined by a tradeoff between entry deterrence and post-entry competition intensification. A pure-equity (a mixture of equity and risky debt) structure is optimal when (1) barriers to entry are small (large), (2) the future prospect of the new market is fairly certain and/or, (3) the new market is likely (unlikely) to create large externalities on the potential entrant's existing business. The post-entry competition is likely to engender large losses to both the winner and the loser.

We propose and estimate a quantitative model of exchange rates in which participants in the foreign exchange market are intermediaries subject to value-at-risk (VaR) constraints. Higher volatility translates into tighter VaR constraints, and intermediaries require higher returns to hold foreign assets. Therefore, the foreign currency is expected to appreciate. The model quantitatively resolves the Backus–Smith puzzle, the forward premium puzzle, and the exchange rate volatility puzzle and explains deviations from the covered interest rate parity. Moreover, the model implies both contemporaneous and predictive relations between proxies of leverage constraint tightness and exchange rates. These implications are supported in the data.

This paper develops a uniformly valid and asymptotically nonconservative test based on projection for a class of shape restrictions. The key insight we exploit is that these restrictions form convex cones, a simple and yet elegant structure that has been barely harnessed in the literature. Based on a monotonicity property afforded by such a geometric structure, we construct a bootstrap procedure that, unlike many studies in nonstandard settings, dispenses with estimation of local parameter spaces, and the critical values are obtained in a way as simple as computing the test statistic. Moreover, by appealing to strong approximations, our framework accommodates nonparametric regression models as well as distributional/density‐related and structural settings. Since the test entails a tuning parameter (due to the nonstandard nature of the problem), we propose a data‐driven choice and prove its validity. Monte Carlo simulations confirm that our test works well.

ABSTRACT Prior research documents that information transmitted via director networks affects firms' policies and real economic activities. Given a manager's potential monopoly over firm information, it is important to analyze whether information transmission through director social networks undermines the manager's control. Specifically, we explore whether information flow through director networks influences managers' ability to hoard bad news. We predict and find that the extent of external connections of the board of directors is negatively associated with future stock price crash risk. Additional analysis implies that this evidence is driven by firms with more powerful executives, with weaker auditor monitoring, or subject to strong investor protection, and by directors with greater monitoring incentives or responsibilities and directors with less firm‐specific knowledge. Collectively, our research lends empirical support for the monitoring view under which better‐informed directors narrow the scope for bad news hoarding evident in stock price crash risk. In another series of tests, we fail to find evidence consistent with the information leakage view under which directors pass sensitive firm‐specific information to connections that trade on the information before its public release. Other analysis helps dispel the concern that the endogenous match between directors and companies is spuriously responsible for our core results. Our empirical findings have important implications on how social networks affect the proper functioning of capital markets.

This paper provides first evidence of negative peer disclosure (NPD), an emerging corporate strategy to publicize adverse news of industry peers on social media. Consistent with NPDs being implicit positive self-disclosures, disclosing firms experience a two-day abnormal return of 1.6–1.7% over the market and industry. Further exploring the benefits and costs of such disclosures, we find that NPD propensity increases with the degree of product market rivalry and technology proximity and disclosing firms outperform nondisclosing peers in the product markets in the year following NPDs. These results rationalize peer disclosure and extend the scope of the literature beyond self-disclosure.

ABSTRACT We analyze whether tough IRS monitoring generates a positive externality by constraining managers' bad news hoarding activities. Supporting this prediction, we find a negative relation between the threat of an IRS audit and stock price crash risk. Our evidence is consistent with recent theory that outside investors learn more about firms when tax enforcement is stricter. Additionally, path analysis suggests that the monitoring channel (direct path) plays a critical role in shaping crash risk relative to information asymmetry channels of tax planning and accruals manipulation (indirect paths). Consistent with other predictions, we find that the monitoring role of IRS audits intensifies when firms experience worse agency conflicts stemming from CEO power and incentives. Collectively, our research implies that external monitoring by tax authorities protects shareholders against managers suppressing negative firm-specific information that engenders stock price crash risk, particularly when CEOs have wider scope and stronger incentives to hoard bad news.