Employing a dataset of 1,160 Indian firms, we study the impact of global financing conditions on firms’ borrowings abroad across different phases of global credit. While the abundant credit in the post global financial crisis period allowed firms to take advantage of relatively cheap financing abroad, we show that firms’ access to external finance has declined since 2013. We find that since 2013, lenders are differentiating across borrowers and it is specifically the less risky and more profitable firms that are increasing their foreign borrowings even at the times of higher global risk. We do not find evidence of regional and domestic credit offsetting this global effect. Furthermore, we find that the reduced access to external finance in the post-2013 period is associated with a decline in firms’ real investment activities, highlighting the real effects of global credit dynamics.

Growing financial failure at firm-level can have serious consequences for banks in terms of rising non-performing assets, in the absence of a strong bankruptcy system. Such a scenario in India made its dysfunctional insolvency system to be reformed, introducing the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2016. Using a panel of 33,845 Indian firms over the period of 2008–2019 and by employing a difference-in-differences approach, we investigate how the IBC has supported financially distressed firms in mitigating their intrinsic vulnerability during the post-IBC period, compared to their non-distressed counterparts. We find that through expanded credit availability and lower cost of debt financing during the post-IBC period, distressed firms are able to improve their performance relative to non-distressed firms. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the benefits stemming from the implementation of the IBC policy are more prominent for those financially distressed firms that are larger, younger and more collateralized. Our results are robust to a battery of tests and identification strategies. Our conclusions are relevant in contributing to the current academic and policy debates on safeguarding and preserving business performance and continuity under stressed scenarios.

The literature shows that rigid capital control policies adversely influence international trade, leading to external financial reforms in terms of greater cross-border access to financing, which, in turn, can stimulate aggregate productivity. However, the literature overlooks the relationships among access to external financing, firm-level productivity, and exporting performance. We fill this research gap by using a rich dataset of 11,612 Indian firms over the period 1988–2014 and study how a unique financial policy intervention affects firm performance. We establish a significant effect of capital-account liberalization through an export-oriented policy initiative on firms' productivity and, consequently, on their exporting activity. Finally, we find that the benefits of the policy reform are more pronounced for financially vulnerable firms characterized by either high debt or low liquidity.

This paper analyses the impact of policy initiatives co-ordinated by Asian national governments on firms' composition of external finance. Using a unique firm-level database of eight Asian countries- Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand over the period of 1996–2012 and a difference-in-differences approach, the results show a significant response of the debt composition to the policy change. We find that firms increased their uptake of long-term debt, while decreased their short-term debt. We also document that less risky and more profitable firms are more significantly affected by the policy change than riskier and less profitable firms. Finally, we show that the improved access to external finance after the policy initiative helped firms to raise their investment spending.

Using a unique proprietary dataset of daily mutual fund trading records and the COVID-19 pandemic-triggered lockdown in Wuhan (China) as a natural experiment, we find that individual mutual fund investors in Wuhan significantly reduced their daily trading frequency, total investment of their portfolios, and risk level of their invested funds during the lockdown period as compared to investors in other cities. The results suggest that the elimination of face-to-face interaction among individual investors during the lockdown reduced their information sharing, which led to more conservatism in their financial trading. We rule out alternative explanations of salience bias due to limited investor attention and temporary changes in personal circumstances such as depression and/or income reduction, during the lockdown period. Finally, consistent with the theory of naïve investor trading, we also find that investors received higher trading returns during the lockdown as they reduced trading aggressively in the absence of face-to-face interactions.