We study mechanisms by which the provision of incentives to new entrants is influenced by lenders' financial interests in incumbents. When a financier has a strong interest in protecting incumbent rents, he stifles the entrant's internal efficiency with a highly dilutive claim, and bribes her for not accessing more aggressive finance elsewhere. By contrast, when the financier's protective interest in the incumbent is less strong, then it can spur the destruction of incumbent rents. This is because it strengthens the financier's commitment to penalize the entrant for managerial slack by forcing her into market exit, which sharpens her internal efficiency and competitiveness. While the corresponding decrease in incumbent firm value is partially internalized by the financier, he is more than compensated by the incremental firm value of the entrant, part or all of which accrues to him. The model has implications for the competitive effects of industry-focused lending styles.

Recent literature suggests that higher capital requirements for banks might lead to a socially costly crowding out of deposits by equity. This paper shows that additional equity in banks can help to crowd in deposits. Intuitively, as banks have more equity and become safer, the cost of deposit funding may decline; this, in turn, can encourage banks to expand their deposits. However, I also find that, for this effect to occur, capital requirements may have to be stringent enough: When bank capital is low, a small rise in capital requirements can cause banks to substitute equity for deposits. Overall, a non-monotonic relationship between the required amount of equity in banks and their level of deposit funding obtains.

We examine the impact of credit default swaps (CDS) on lending relationships and credit market efficiency. CDS insulate lenders against losses from forcing borrowers into default and liquidation. This improves the credibility of foreclosure threats, which can have positive implications for borrower incentives and credit availability ex ante. However, lenders may also abuse their enhanced bargaining power vis-à-vis borrowers and extract excessive rents in debt renegotiations. If this hold up threat becomes severe, borrowers will be reluctant to agree to debt maturity designs or control rights transfers that would have been optimal in the absence of CDS markets. The introduction of CDS markets may then ultimately tighten credit constraints and be detrimental to welfare. Our analysis yields a number of empirical implications, some of which have been tested.

Conventional wisdom suggests that greater competition in banking, by eroding bank charter values, exacerbates banks’ incentives to take excessive risks. This paper presents a model in which, contrary to this view, competition can cause banks to act more prudently: As competition intensifies and profit margins decline, banks face more-binding threats of failure, to which they may respond by taking lower risks. Nonetheless, competition is unambiguously destabilizing in this model: The direct effect of lower margins on bank failure rates always outweighs the prudence effect. A key implication is that the effects of competition on bank risk taking and on failure risk can move in opposite directions.

Less-intense competition for deposits, by mitigating banks’ incentive to take excessive risks, is traditionally believed to lead to lower non-performing loan (NPL) ratios and more-stable banks. This paper revisits this proposition in a model with borrower moral hazard in which banks’ NPL ratios depend endogenously on their loan pricing. In relatively uncompetitive loan markets, less-fierce competition for deposits (i.e., lower deposit rates) leads to lower loan rates and, thus, safer loans. In more-competitive markets, the opposite can occur: As banks’ deposit-repayment burdens decline, they become less eager to risk-shift; this softens competition for risky loans, leading to higher loan rates and, ultimately, riskier loans. Overall, the model predicts a hump-shaped relationship between banks’ pricing power in deposit markets and their NPL ratios.

We study whether Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made cross-listed firms less opaque via an examination of analyst earnings forecasts. To test this, we compare European Union (EU) firms that are cross-listed in the US—and therefore subject to S404—with comparable EU firms that are not cross listed. We find that while both types of firms experienced a decrease in opaqueness over time, this decrease was significantly larger for cross-listed firms. Our results are robust to accounting for concurrent sell-side analyst regulations in the US, delistings, and changes in corporate risk taking. Overall, our analysis suggests that SOX had a positive effect on corporate disclosure quality.

We analyze financial support for the entrepreneurial sector. State support can raise welfare by relaxing financial constraints, but it can also reduce lending standards if entrepreneurs substitute public sources of collateral for their own assets, if it encourages excessive entrepreneurial entry, or if it undermines bank monitoring incentives. We derive a “pecking order” for support schemes: support funds should be channeled first to credit guarantee schemes and then, when entrepreneurs start to substitute public for private collateral, to co-funding entrepreneurial projects. The optimal level of credit guarantee is diminishing in the costs of incentivising bank monitoring. We show in an extension that the long-term effect of public subsidies may be to impair the private sector’s initiative to uncover cost savings.