This paper studies the extent to which macro-finance term structure models are susceptible to predictive uncertainty. We propose a general form of arbitrage-free models and quantify the relative importance of unpredictable priced risk variance, as well as macro-finance model uncertainty and learning uncertainty in predictability. Predictive performance and relative contributions of uncertainty sources are dynamically measured based on Bayesian methods, revealing dominating priced risk variance and other important uncertainty sources at different points in time. Macro-finance model uncertainty is high for near-term forward spread forecasts and contributes up to 87% of predictive uncertainty prior to recessions, implying strong dispersion in the information content of macro variables when forming near-term monetary policy expectations. (JEL C1, C3, C5, D8, E4, G1)

Sri Lanka unilaterally defaulted on its external debt in April 2022, exposing its long-standing economic and financial vulnerabilities and igniting a series of inter-related multiple economic crises—fiscal, debt, currency, inflation, and balance of payments—as well as a vast socio-political upheaval. This paper analyses the economic crisis and its various dimensions to understand the sources of the crisis and draw policy implications. The role of fiscal balances and public debt in the crisis, along with debt sustainability, international sovereign bonds, liquidity crisis, and currency collapse, are analyzed. The root cause of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis was running persistent and large fiscal deficits, which were increasingly financed by unsustainable public debt, particularly foreign commercial borrowings. A substantial reduction and reprofiling of debt through restructuring of both domestic and foreign debt to ensure debt sustainability, meaningful fiscal policy reforms anchored by revenue increases and expenditure rationalization to reduce fiscal deficits, and deep growth-enhancing structural reforms are necessary for medium-term rescue and recovery and long-term growth and stability of Sri Lanka. The findings provide important policy lessons for other emerging markets and middle-income economies.

This paper studies the causal effects of personal investment taxes on stock returns and the financial decisions of companies. I exploit a change in legislation in 2013 which allowed stocks listed on the Alternative Investment Market, a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange, to be held in capital gains and dividend tax-exempt investment accounts for the first time. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I find that excess stock returns decreased by their pre-legislation change effective tax rate, and that firms adjusted their capital structure and increased their spending on dividends, capital, and labour, in-line with the “traditional view” of corporate investment.

Joseph P. Ferrie of Northwestern University and NBER reviews “Economics in America: An Immigrant Economist Explores the Land of Inequality” by Angus Deaton. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the positives and negatives of economics as both a science and a profession, presenting insights from the author's personal experiences as a naturalized US citizen and academic economist.”

This study empirically examines whether firms reclassify related-party payments to avoid the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). We leverage the BEAT filing threshold and use both a difference-in-differences design among U.S. firms and a triple-difference design utilizing the parent company's location to provide evidence that firms reclassify related-party payments to avoid the BEAT. This effect is stronger in firms with greater pre-TCJA income shifting incentives. We estimate a $6 billion aggregate reduction in U.S. taxes for our sample firms in 2018. We also examine the consequences of reclassifying related-party payments and find some evidence of an increase in tax reserves and a reduction in internal information quality for firms that engage in cost reclassification to avoid the BEAT. These findings help explain observed BEAT collection shortfalls, contribute to the current policy debate about international tax reform, and document spillover effects of tax policy.

We investigate whether CEOs around the world are held accountable for stakeholder-related corporate misbehavior. The likelihood of CEO turnover increases significantly when the media coverage of the ESG incidents reaches extreme levels. CEO turnovers occur even in the cases where an incident does not lead to a stock price decline. In such cases, the board likely has a non-pecuniary motive for the turnover. This suggests that such non-pecuniary reputational concerns are an important determinant of CEO turnover decisions around the world, especially when the firm is facing intense public pressure due to stakeholder-related corporate misbehavior. This effect is more pronounced when firms are headquartered in stakeholder-oriented countries like many European countries.

We use the adoption of General Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB 34) to examine whether disclosing information in states' financial reports influences their investment decisions. GASB 34 requires governments to report on general infrastructure assets and permits either the standard depreciation approach or the modified approach. The modified approach requires additional disclosures, a step which we argue promotes greater transparency about a government's infrastructure and can potentially facilitate infrastructure investment decisions. We find a robust positive association between the modified approach and investment in infrastructure maintenance. Additional evidence demonstrates a more pronounced effect when external monitoring is likely higher and government officials are likely better informed as a result of the increased disclosure. We further find that states using the modified approach are less likely to cut or divert funds intended for infrastructure maintenance. Our study suggests that disclosing information in governments' financial reports can have real effects, such as mitigating underinvestment in infrastructure maintenance, which governments often defer to future periods in violation of the interperiod equity principle and to the detriment of society.

We study the role of litigation risk in M&A valuations. Specifically, we hypothesize that litigation risk leads to strategic valuations in fairness opinions (FOs) obtained in M&A transactions. Employing a regulatory shock to merger litigation risk and focusing on the most common valuation techniques – peer firm comparables and DCF analysis – we find that target-sought FOs exhibit lower valuations when litigation risk is high. The effect is concentrated in deals with greater agency conflicts between target management and outside shareholders. Furthermore, downward-biased valuations reduce appraisal litigation but are also associated with lower premiums. In contrast to prior work suggesting that target-sought FOs are used to negotiate a higher takeover price, our findings imply that they are used, at least in part, to mitigate litigation risk and facilitate successful deal completion. Our findings are relevant to academics, practitioners, and regulators interested in M&A price formation, and highlight the role litigation plays therein.