This paper examines the effects of bond liquidity on firms’ investments. We postulate that bond liquidity increases firms’ investment opportunities by reducing the cost of capital and improving access to financing. Using the variation in liquidity generated by several – both positive and negative – exogenous shocks, we find that firms respond to positive (negative) shocks by expanding (contracting) capital expenditures and acquisition activity. Further, by enhancing access to funding, bond liquidity facilitates acquisition financing and reduces the likelihood of investment delays. We also find a positive impact of bond liquidity on market valuations and profitability, suggesting that these investments are value-increasing.

Corporate bond spreads are affected by both credit risk and liquidity and it is difficult to disentangle the two factors empirically. In this paper we separate out the credit risk component by examining bonds that are issued by the same firm and that trade on the same day, allowing us to examine the effects of liquidity in a sample of bond pairs. We examine standard liquidity measures to determine how well they explain the differences in the two bonds’ yield spreads and find that the proxies do a poor job of measuring liquidity effects. Incorporating liquidity proxies related to other bonds issued by the firm and those for bonds of other firms can significantly improve the explanatory power. Still, a significant portion of the spread is left unexplained and it is largely driven by a common unknown factor. We conclude that good proxies for the liquidity component of corporate bond spreads remain elusive.

We examine the incentives for mutual fund families to launch ESG funds. Our analyses reveal that introducing a new ESG fund leads to a significant increase in capital inflows to sibling non-ESG funds in the family. This flow spillover accounts for a significant portion of the monetary awards for families to offer ESG funds. We also find that spillover is stronger among retail funds and cannot be attributed to changes in the ESG profiles or abnormal returns of the sibling funds. Further evidence suggests that affect-based judgments, particularly the halo effect, are the key drivers of this spillover effect.