Chinese banks have become the largest cross-border creditors for almost half of all emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs). While they look similar to other EMDE banks in terms of ownership and balance-sheet structure, their global cross-border lending resembles that of banks from advanced economies along several dimensions, especially when lending to EMDEs. We find that geographical distance poses a barrier for cross-border lending, including for Chinese banks. For them, given their network of affiliates, this barrier is lower than for other EMDE banks, more like US or European banks. We show that across all bank nationalities, bilateral economic interactions, like trade, FDI and portfolio investment, all positively correlate with cross-border lending. What stands out is that Chinese banks’ lending to EMDEs correlates more than any other nationality with trade, but there is no such correlation with FDI and, unlike all other banks, their lending correlates negatively with portfolio investment.

Using a new survey of firms in New Zealand, we document how exogenous variation in the macroeconomic uncertainty perceived by firms affects their economic decisions. We use randomized information treatments that provide different types of information about the first and/or second moments of future economic growth to generate exogenous changes in the perceived macroeconomic uncertainty of some firms. The effects on their decisions relative to their initial plans as well as relative to an untreated control group are measured in a follow‐up survey six months later. We find that as firms become more uncertain, they reduce their prices, employment, and investment, their sales decline, and they become less likely to invest in new technologies or open new facilities. These ex post effects of uncertainty are similar to how firms say they would respond to higher uncertainty when asked hypothetical questions.

This study critically evaluates research published by Contemporary Accounting Research ( CAR ) between 1984 and 2021 using bibliometric analysis. We examine the following: (i) CAR 's publication quality and the factors associated with its citations and (ii) CAR 's scope regarding research diversity, methods, authors geographical dispersion, and collaborative networks. The methodology permits observation of finer collaboration details and research patterns not apparent by simply categorizing the data. We use tools such as performance analysis, coauthorship analysis, bibliographic coupling, and regression analysis. The bibliometric analysis shows improvement in CAR 's CiteScore and source‐normalized impact per paper over time, consistent with publishing high‐quality research. Our analysis reveals that authors' geographical affiliations, research subject areas, and research methods are not systematically associated with citations across our various subsamples. A notable exception is that research on audit topics generates more citations than studies examining financial accounting topics. Other factors significantly and positively associated with citations include article age, article length, number of authors, order of author names, and number of references. We also show that CAR has become more diverse regarding author affiliations, subject areas, and research methods than most leading accounting journals. Only Accounting, Organizations and Society emerges as more diverse, thereby serving as a benchmark for CAR in the future. CAR should consider focusing on high‐interest areas to boost citations and tightening its acceptance criteria.

We resolve the asymmetric price response puzzle for additions to and deletions from the S&P 500 documented in Chen, Noronha, and Singal (2004) by using a more appropriate methodology to measure abnormal returns and correctly adjusting for outliers. In contrast to their findings, our results show a permanent price response for both additions and deletions. We further distinguish between firms transferred into other S&P indices and true additions/deletions (firms not added from or placed into other S&P indices). We find a permanent price increase for true additions and a permanent decline in price for true deletions from the S&P 500.