Distrust or speculation? The socioeconomic drivers of U.S. cryptocurrency investments

Employing representative data from the U.S. Survey of Consumer Payment Choice, we find no evidence that cryptocurrency investors are motivated by distrust in fiat currencies or regulated finance. Compared with the general population, investors show no differences in their level of security concerns with either cash or commercial banking services. We find that cryptocurrency investors tend to be educated, young and digital natives. In recent years, a gap in ownership of cryptocurrencies across genders has emerged. We examine how investor characteristics vary across cryptocurrencies and show that owners of cryptocurrencies increasingly tend to hold their investment for longer periods.     

The U.S. left behind? Financial globalization and the rise of IPOs outside the U.S.

From 1990 to 2011, the share of world IPO activity by non-U.S. firms increased because of financial globalization and because of a decrease in U.S. IPO activity. Financial globalization reduces the impact of national institutions on domestic IPO activity and enables more non-U.S. firms from countries with weak institutions to go public with a global IPO. U.S. IPO activity does not benefit from financial globalization. Compared to other countries, the rate of small-firm IPO activity in the U.S. is abnormally low in the 2000s. This abnormally low rate cannot be explained by the regulatory changes of the early 2000s.     

The Declining Credit Quality of U.S. Corporate Debt: Myth or Reality?

In recent years, the number of downgrades in corporate bond ratings has exceeded the number of upgrades, leading some to conclude that the credit quality of U.S. corporate debt has declined. However, an alternative explanation of this apparent decline in credit quality is that the rating agencies are now using more stringent standards in assigning ratings. An ordered probit analysis of a panel of firms from 1978 through 1995 suggests that rating standards have indeed become more stringent, implying that at least part of the downward trend in ratings is the result of changing standards.     

Does the source of uncertainty matter? The impact of financial,newspaper and Twitter-based measures on U.S. banks

This study examines if the source of uncertainty (newspaper, Twitter, financial market) matters in its impact on bank stock returns in the United States. By applying discrete wavelet transformation, we model directional spillovers and Granger causality between uncertainty and bank returns for different time horizons. Our results demonstrate that this distinction between time horizons is crucial. Although newspaper and Twitter-based measures are correlated, they capture a different source of investor perception. Twitter-based uncertainty adversely affects bank stocks in the short run, while newspaper-based policy uncertainty is relevant in the medium run. Financial-based uncertainty, VIX, is the most important factor. Moreover, we find that the impact of uncertainty on bank returns is stronger during the COVID-19 pandemic and for banks with a high ratio of loans to total assets and large off-balance-sheet activities.     

Villains or scapegoats? The role of subprime borrowers in driving the U.S. housing boom

An expansion in mortgage credit to subprime borrowers is widely believed to have been a principal driver of the 2002-2006 U.S. house price boom. By contrast, this paper documents a robust, negative correlation between the growth in the share of purchase mortgages to subprime borrowers and house price appreciation at the county-level during this time. Using two different instrumental variables approaches, we also establish causal evidence that house price appreciation lowered the share of purchase loans to subprime borrowers. Further analysis using micro-level credit bureau data shows that higher house price appreciation reduced the transition rate into first-time homeownership for subprime individuals. Finally, the paper documents that subprime borrowers did not play a significant role in the increased speculative activity and underwriting fraud that the literature has linked directly to the housing boom. Taken together, these results are more consistent with subprime borrowers being priced out of housing boom markets rather than inflating prices in those markets.     

Keeping up or Falling behind? The Impact of Benefit and Tax Uprating on Incomes and Poverty*

Each year, the government decides how much to raise benefits and tax allowances. In the UK, the basis for these upratings is rarely debated, yet has major long‐term consequences for the relative living standards of different groups as well as for the public finances. This paper considers the medium‐term implications of present uprating policies, which vary across parameters of the tax–benefit system. Continuing these policies for 20 years, other things staying the same, would result in a near doubling of the child poverty rate alongside a substantial gain to the public finances. At the same time, pensioners are largely protected by the earnings indexation of pensioner benefits including, in time, the basic state pension. We show how difficult it will be to meet the UK child poverty targets unless the greater inequality inherent in the current regime for uprating payments and allowances is redressed.     

The Structural Dynamics of U.S. Output and Inflation: What Explains the Changes?

We examine the dynamics of U.S. output and inflation using a structural time-varying coefficients vector autoregression. There are changes in the volatility of both variables and in the persistence of inflation, but variations are statistically insignificant. Technology shocks explain changes in output volatility; real demand disturbances variations in the persistence and volatility of inflation. We detect important time variations in the transmission of technology shocks to output and demand shocks to inflation and significant changes in the variance of technology and of monetary policy shocks.     

Public Pensions and U.S. Infrastructure Investment: The Perfect Partnership?

Public pension funds have been passive investors in U.S. infrastructure projects for years, serving primarily as limited partners in designated infrastructure funds. However, the continued maturation of U.S. public‐private partnerships, combined with pension funds' need for yield to match future liabilities, has prompted the funds to take a more active role in infrastructure investment. In recent years, many pension funds have built internal teams to make direct (as opposed to indirect and for the most part passive) investments in infrastructure projects. Governments in particular should pay close attention to the emergence of pension funds as direct infrastructure investors. With OECD pension assets totaling $10.6 trillion at the end of 2010, the world's pension funds offer governments a strong value proposition. Given the fixed nature of their pension liabilities, pension funds emphasize yield and long‐term appreciation, and are likely to accept rate of returns in the neighborhood of CPI + 5%. Infrastructure investments, which generate highly stable cashflow and enjoy high barriers to entry, are ideally suited to meet these criteria. Also of particular significance to governments, pension funds have two bottom lines. First is expected yield and returns; second is their desire to invest in projects that meet a mission of social responsibility. Pension investors prefer, when possible, to invest in projects that promote government objectives such as reduced congestion and clean air. Taking account of pension funds' double mission can help governments capture opportunities to develop infrastructure through meaningful partnerships with like‐minded investors.     

Coaches or Speculators? The Role and Impact of Venture Capital on Executive Compensation in Chinese Listed Companies

In this paper, we utilize a panel dataset that covers 1245 listed companies which accomplished their IPO during 2006 to 2014 in China to investigate the impact of venture capital (VC) firms on executive compensation, equity incentive and pay-performance-sensitivity. We make several key findings: First, we find the presence of VCs can significantly raise the executive compensation. Second, high reputation VCs and private VCs increases the likelihood of granting executive equity incentives, whereas foreign VCs are significantly negatively related with executive equity incentive. Third, the pay-performance sensitivity of government VCs and foreign VCs is significant on stock return (RET) whereas insignificant on accounting performance (ROA). Moreover, the increasing VCs share in portfolio companies enhance the pay performance sensitivity on RET. Our results show that before VCs final exiting their post-IPO portfolio companies in China, VCs’ impact on executive compensation are more consistent with grandstanding theories and intending to provide higher cash compensation to encourage executives to raise the companies’ stock price, which is indicating VCs’ changing role from a coach into a speculator after the portfolio companies’ IPO.     

Uninvited U.S. Investors? Economic Consequences of Involuntary Cross‐Listings

We study the economic consequences of a recent Securities and Exchange Commission securities regulation change that grants foreign firms trading on the U.S. over‐the‐counter (OTC) market an automatic exemption from the reporting requirements of the 1934 Securities Act. We document that the number of voluntary (sponsored) OTC cross‐listings did not increase following the regulation change, suggesting that it did not achieve its intended purpose of increasing voluntary OTC cross‐listings through a reduction in compliance costs. We do find that the design of the regulation allowed financial intermediaries to create an unprecedented number of involuntary (unsponsored) OTC ADRs: 1,700 unsponsored ADR programs for 920 firms were created for companies that had previously chosen not to cross‐list in the United States. Our difference‐in‐differences analysis based on a matched sample approach documents that foreign firms forced into the U.S. capital markets experience a significant decrease in firm value, and we further show that the decrease in firm value is related to an increase in U.S. litigation risk. We also find that depositary banks’ propensity to involuntarily cross‐list firms is positively related to banks’ expected fee revenue, and that banks chose firms that incur high costs when involuntarily cross‐listed. Our results provide evidence that securities regulation can be exploited for private gain and result in costly unintended consequences.     

Are Analysts’ Recommendations Informative? Intraday Evidence on the Impact of Time Stamp Delays

We demonstrate that time stamps reported in I/B/E/S for analysts’ recommendations released during trading hours are systematically delayed. Using newswire‐reported time stamps, we find 30‐minute returns of 1.83% (?2.10%) for upgrades (downgrades), but for this subset of recommendations we find corresponding returns of ?0.07% (?0.09%) using I/B/E/S‐reported time stamps. We also examine the information content of recommendations relative to management guidance and earnings announcements. Our evidence suggests that analysts’ recommendations are the most important information disclosure channel examined.     

The smart money is in cash? Financial literacy and liquid savings among U.S. families

Most financial advisors recommend storing three to six months of expenses in liquid assets in case of an emergency. Yet we estimate that more than half of U.S. families do not have at least three months of their non-discretionary expenses in liquid savings. We find that financial literacy is strongly predictive of having three months of liquid savings, controlling for income, income variability, and even parental resources. We also find that financial literacy predicts liquid savings across the income distribution. These results indicate that accumulation of an emergency fund is not simply a function of income. Finally, financial literacy is predictive of liquid savings even among high illiquid wealth households. This suggests that the phenomenon of “wealthy hand-to-mouth” families may reflect financial mistakes rather than portfolio optimization. Our paper highlights the importance of financial knowledge in explaining families’ preparedness to deal with unexpected expenses or disruption in their income.     

ESG for All? The Impact of ESG Screening on Return,Risk, and Diversification

A large body of research has documented a positive relationship between different measures of sustainability—such as indicators of employee satisfaction and effective corporate governance—and corporate financial performance. Nevertheless, many investors still struggle to quantify the value of ESG to investment performance. To address this issue, the authors tested the effects of using different ESG filters on an investable universe that serves as the starting point for a fund manager. In this way, they attempted to determine the extent to which ESG data can add value to any investment approach, regardless of preferences towards sustainable investing. The authors report “an unequivocally positive” contribution to risk‐adjusted returns when using a 10% best‐in‐class ESG screening approach (one that effectively removes companies with the lowest 10% of ESG rankings), both on a global and a developed markets universe. More specifically, as a result of such screening, both the global and developed markets portfolios show higher returns, lower (tail) risk, and no significant reduction of diversification potential despite the reduction in the number of companies. Use of a 25% screening filter was also found to add value, especially by reducing tail risks, but with a larger deviation from the unscreened universe. Overall, then, the authors’ finding is that the incorporation of ESG information contributes to better decision‐making in every investment approach, with the optimal configuration depending on a fund manager's preferences and willingness to deviate from an unscreened benchmark.     

What Is the Importance of Monetary and Fiscal Shocks in Explaining U.S. Macroeconomic Fluctuations?

This paper analyzes the importance of monetary and fiscal policy shocks in explaining U.S. macroeconomic fluctuations, and establishes new stylized facts. The novelty of our empirical analysis is that we jointly consider both monetary and fiscal policy, whereas the existing literature only focuses on either one or the other. Our main findings are twofold: fiscal shocks are relatively more important in explaining medium cycle fluctuations whereas monetary policy shocks are relatively more important in explaining business cycle fluctuations, and failing to recognize that both monetary and fiscal policy simultaneously affect macroeconomic variables might incorrectly attribute the fluctuations to the wrong source.     

Are All Ratings Created Equal? The Impact of Issuer Size on the Pricing of Mortgage‐Backed Securities

Initial yields on both AAA‐rated and non‐AAA rated mortgage‐backed security (MBS) tranches sold by large issuers are higher than yields on similar tranches sold by small issuers during the market boom years of 2004 to 2006. Moreover, the prices of MBS sold by large issuers drop more than those sold by small issuers, and the differences are concentrated among tranches issued during 2004 to 2006. These results suggest that investors price the risk that large issuers received more inflated ratings than small issuers, especially during boom periods.