In this paper, we investigate the stock market valuation of the intangible asset created by selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenditure. Although GAAP requires immediate expensing of SG&A, prior studies show that current SG&A generates future economic benefits, suggesting that it creates an intangible asset. We find that the contemporaneous stock market seems to recognize some of the intangible asset value implicit in SG&A. Positive subsequent returns can be earned in firms with a high SG&A intangible asset value. These excess returns are more likely due to investor mispricing than to risk compensation. Furthermore, we find that both analysts' long-term growth forecast revisions and one-year-ahead forecast errors are positively associated with the future value created by current SG&A, indicating that analysts partially incorporate the intangible SG&A asset value into their forecasts. Overall, the evidence suggests that the capital market only partially recognizes the intangible asset value created by SG&A expenditure.

Analysts strategically allocate more effort to portfolio firms that are relatively more important to their careers. Thus, the other firms the analysts cover indirectly affect a firm’s information environment. Controlling for analyst and firm characteristics, we find that an analyst makes more accurate, frequent, and informative earnings forecasts and recommendations for firms ranked higher within her portfolio based on proxies for importance to institutions. A firm’s relative rank widely varies across analysts, but its information environment improves when a larger proportion of analysts consider it to be relatively important. Analysts experience more favorable career outcomes when strategically allocating their efforts. Received August 23, 2017; editorial decision June 27, 2018 by Editor Lauren Cohen.

We explore the impact of capital adequacy requirements on financial institutions’ risk-taking behavior from a novel perspective. Specifically, we show that an important feature of the risk-based capital (RBC) system—a built-in diversification benefit in aggregating risk categories—induces moral hazard. We find that insurers that face lower marginal RBC costs of fixed-income (FI) investment tend to purchase riskier FI securities. This relationship holds even when lower marginal RBC costs result from increased risk in other risk categories, which is an unintended consequence of the RBC's square root rule. Using Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy as exogenous shocks to the RBC cost, we find that insurers that suffered more in the two disasters undertook more risk in their FI investments and witnessed an increase in their overall risk. We further show that insurers with a high RBC cost sell similar risky bonds during the financial crisis, presenting a source of systemic risk. These results provide an important regulatory implication for minimum capital calculation in capital regulation regimes.