We analyze the choice between fixed-price offerings and auctions in IPOs and privatizations. We model a firm going public by selling equity in the IPO market. Firm insiders have private information about intrinsic firm value, but outsiders can produce information about this value before bidding for shares. Inducing information production is beneficial for higher intrinsic value firms, because this information, reflected in secondary market prices, yields higher equity prices. We show that auctions and fixed-price offerings have different properties for inducing information production, solve for the equilibrium IPO mechanisms for firms with different characteristics, and explain the “IPO auction” puzzle. Received July 3, 2012; Editorial decision July 14, 2018 by Editor Paolo Fulghieri

This article uses the 2007–09 financial crisis as a negative liquidity shock on banks in the USA and analyzes its transmission to the real economy. The ex ante heterogeneity in the amount of long-term debt that matured during the crisis is used to measure the variation in banks’ exposure to the liquidity shock. I find that banks transmitted the liquidity shock to the real economy by reducing their loan supply. The reduction was particularly strong for real estate loans. As a result, house prices declined in the MSAs where these banks have branches. Bank capital plays a significant role in the transmission: under-capitalized banks transmitted the liquidity shock, whereas well-capitalized banks’ lending did not show any decline.

We construct theory-based measures of systemic bank shocks. These measures complement banking crisis indicators employed in many empirical studies, which we show capture (lagged) policy responses to systemic bank shocks. To illustrate the importance of disentangling shocks and policy responses to these shocks, we assess the impact of deposit insurance and safety net guarantees on both the probability of a systemic bank shock and that of a policy response. We find that deposit insurance and safety net guarantees do not affect the probability of a systemic bank shock, but increase the probability of a policy response to such a shock, consistent with the results of the previous literature. The joint use of measures of systemic bank shocks and policy responses may lead to a policy-relevant re-interpretation of the findings of a large empirical literature.

We investigate the influence of the institutional environment on bank capital ratios. Using a sample of 160 banks operating in the Middle East and North Africa region for the period 2004–2014, we find that, when stock markets have little presence, institutional variables significantly affect risk-weighted regulatory capital ratios but not leverage ratios. Conversely, when stock markets are more developed, only leverage ratios are influenced by institutional factors. Our results also indicate that institutional variables affect non-weighted equity-to-asset ratios of banks that are listed on a stock exchange. Our findings contribute to the bank capital structure literature and have important policy implications for developing countries.

The capital structure irrelevance argument of Modigliani and Miller (1958) implies that the use of debt or leases should have no impact on firm values. This classical argument leaves out several important considerations crucial for the result, in particular, counterparty credit risk. We re-examine the capital structure problem for firms that can utilize debt and leases in the presence of counterparty risk. Our numerical and empirical estimates show a negative term structure of lease rates that steepens as a function of counterparty risk. Moreover, we document numerical evidence for the complementary relationship between debt and leases in the presence of counterparty risk.

We study the link between the individual propensity to violate moral principles and the demand for finance based on two data sets: the World Values Survey and a data set with the legal records of U.S. chief executive officers (CEOs). We find that individuals who are more tolerant of moral principle violations are more likely to borrow. Corporate executives with legal records are also associated with larger mortgages. Reverse causality and attitudes toward risk are unlikely explanations for our findings. We contend that noncompliance relaxes participation constraints in capital markets by lowering the psychological costs of entering and breaking a contract.

We document a growing disparity in earnings disclosure mechanisms. Firms are increasingly disclosing earnings announcements (EA) concurrently with the 10-K filing instead of first issuing a ‘stand-alone’ EA. Firm adoption of concurrent EA/10-Ks is associated with lower investor sophistication, greater impediments to producing timely and reliable earnings information, and greater industry-level concurrent reporting. Concurrent EA/10-Ks differ from stand-alone EAs in that investors anticipate more information in the EA, disclosures are preempted by industry peer EAs, the market reaction is muted even when controlling for EA timing, and post-earnings-announcement drift is greater.

We directly test the reliability and relevance of investee fair values reported by listed private equity funds (LPEs). In our setting, disaggregated fair value measurements are observable for funds’ investees; and investee accounting fundamentals are also publicly disclosed. We find that LPE fair value measurements reflect equity book value and net income in a manner consistent with stock market pricing of listed companies. However, LPE fair value measurements appear to distinguish between Level 1 and Level 3 inputs – they reflect investee net income to a lesser extent for Level 3 inputs. Further evidence based on the stock market pricing of LPE funds indicates that the discretion exercised by LPE fund managers when determining investee valuations is perceived as reliable.

There has been a substantial increase, since 2004, in the number of firms that announce annual earnings before audit completion as opposed to after audit completion. In this study, we argue that earnings announced before audit completion are associated with lower financial reporting quality and investor perceptions that earnings are more likely to be overstated. Consistent with this expectation, we document that the market places more (less) weight on good (bad) earnings news for earnings announced after audit completion relative to earnings announced before audit completion. We continue to find this differential market response when we expand the returns window to include the 10‐K filing date, suggesting that the differential response is not driven by investors' temporary concerns about earnings revisions between the earnings announcement and the 10‐K filing date or by differential GAAP disclosures in the earnings announcement, as suggested in prior research. Finally, as a direct test of financial reporting quality, we show that earnings announced with a completed audit are less likely to be restated in the future, are less likely to meet or beat expectations, and are associated with fewer income‐increasing discretionary accruals than those announced with an incomplete audit.

The financial security of the investing public relies on high‐quality service by broker‐dealers (BDs), investors' gateway to the financial markets. The SEC has long required auditors to attest to BDs' internal controls and compliance with regulations (including those privately owned). Following the unraveling of the Madoff Ponzi scheme in 2008, the SEC required auditors of all BDs to register with the PCAOB, and Congressional initiatives signaled imminent transition from private (AICPA) to public (PCAOB) oversight. We investigate whether audit quality increased following this transition by measuring whether auditors report material internal control and compliance problems for BD clients where a deficiency presumably existed (i.e., BDs sanctioned by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for transgressions against stakeholders). Overall, we do not find increased reporting quality following the regulatory shift but do observe variation by auditor group and BD ownership. While reporting quality for global network firms (GNFs) increases slightly, lower reporting quality observed prior to the regulatory shift for specialist audit firms (having large BD portfolios but small overall size) is exacerbated afterward. This finding complements results of PCAOB inspections and other research identifying audit quality problems among small, industry‐specialized firms in non‐public client settings. Focusing on deficiencies likely more difficult to detect, we find lower reporting quality for private relative to publicly affiliated BDs prior to PCAOB oversight, and lower reporting quality for very small audit firms relative to GNFs following the regulatory shift.