We examine information spillovers in the context of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). Rival firms react significantly positively (0.26%) to primary SEO announcements, indicative of a competitive effect, but negatively (−0.35%) to secondary share announcements, which is evidence of a contagion effect. Consistent with the view that primary equity offerings signal favorable industry prospects because firms presumably issue new shares to invest in profitable projects, we find that the rival response is positively related to analysts' EPS growth forecasts. However, when insiders are selling their shares through a secondary offer, this may suggest overvaluation and thus negatively impacts rival firms. Consistent with this view, we find when VCs sell through a secondary offerings, rivals experience a more significant negative reaction. We find rival firms are more likely to follow their peers and conduct a primary SEO if the market reacts favorably to their peer's SEO announcement. Finally, rival firms outperform secondary share issuers of equity, but not primary share issuers. Collectively, the findings support the view that insiders take advantage of windows of opportunity when they sell their own shares, but not when they raise capital for investing purposes.

We investigate the influences of local product market competition on the cost of private debt. Our evidence suggests that the cost of bank loans is significantly higher for firms headquartered in states with greater local product market competition measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for resident industries. To establish causality, we examine the recognition of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine and firm relocations to identify exogenous shocks to local product market competition. We find that the cost of bank loans is lower for firms facing less intense local product market competition after the adoption of IDD and higher for firms relocated to states with more competitive product markets. The results imply that banks value the characteristics of a firm's local product market when approving loan contracts.

We examine how political geography affects firms' cost of debt. Local policy risk, measured by proximity to political power reflected in firms' position in the country's political map, is positively related to firms' cost of debt. Employing a difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) estimation around presidential elections, we find that firms headquartered in states that become more aligned with the president after elections are exposed to more policy risk and thus incur higher yield spreads. Firms can manage policy risk by engaging in corporate political strategies. Consistent with the view that such political strategies protect firms against uncertainty about future policies, we find policy risk has less of an impact on a firm's cost of debt when the firm makes more PAC contributions or spends more money on lobbying.

Using a sample of state pension funds’ equity holdings, we find evidence of not only local bias, but also bias towards politically-connected stocks. Political bias is detrimental to fund performance. State pension funds have longer holding durations of politically-connected local firms and display disposition behavior in these positions. Political bias is positively related to the percentage of politically-affiliated trustees on the board and Congressional connections. The more politically-affiliated trustees on the board, the more the fund shifts toward risky asset allocations. Overall, our results imply that political bias is likely costly to taxpayers and pension beneficiaries.

We exploit the staggered state-level enactment of the Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) to examine the impact of intellectual property (IP) protection on product market dynamics. We find that UTSA-impacted firms shift their IP strategy to rely more on trade secrets and less on patents. Less IP disclosure increases information asymmetry and rival firms must adapt their competitive strategies as espionage and reverse engineering become more costly. Predation risk increases, and rivals engage in more intense price and non-price competition. Additionally, we find the probability of being acquired increases post-UTSA as rivals seek to acquire innovation, resulting in more concentrated product markets. Further, we find that the stock market generally views UTSA favorably.

This article was originally published in 2017 in The Accounting Review 92 (3): 155-184.

We examine the response of informed market participants to the informational signal of auditor changes. Using propensity score matching and difference-in-differences research designs, we document that loan spreads increase by 22 percent on bank loans initiated within a year after auditor changes, increasing direct loan costs by approximately $6.6 million. We also find a significant increase in upfront and annual fees and the probability of pledging collateral, consistent with an increase in screening and monitoring by banks. The increase in spreads is significant for client-initiated auditor changes, with or without disagreements with the auditor, as well as for auditor resignations. Further, the significant increase in loan spreads is documented for upward, lateral, and downward auditor changes. Our results are robust to other proxies for financial reporting quality. Finally, we find no effect resulting from the forced auditor changes due to Arthur Andersen. Collectively, these results suggest that voluntary auditor changes increase information risk, which is priced in private credit markets.