Is there a dark side of competition? Product market competition and auditor-client contracting

This study establishes the informational value of a company's product market competition, derived from qualitative nonfinancial disclosures, in the audit contracting process. Greater product market competition could either serve as means of mitigating agency costs between managers and shareholders or heightening managerial rent-seeking activities and the incentive to distort disclosures. Consequently, greater competition could either increase or decrease audit engagement risk. We find that greater product market competition is associated with greater engagement risk. Auditors respond to the higher risk by assessing greater audit fees. Although auditors respond by charging higher fees and dedicating greater effort to these engagements, we nonetheless find that audit quality is negatively affected by greater competition. Our findings are consistent with the dark side hypothesis of product market competition. Overall, our study provides evidence that company-level competition effects convey valuable information to auditors.     

Is competition beneficial? The case of exchange traded funds

New ETF creation has surged in recent years, giving investors the option to choose from a wide range of similar ETFs within each group of competitors. We identify groups of ETFs that can be considered direct competitors and examine the impact of competition on their market quality. Results show improved market quality measures when competition increases. A change equivalent to going from a monopoly to a highly competitive market results in a 29% decrease in bid–ask spreads, a 72% decrease in illiquidity, and a 52% increase in turnover. However, we find that competition has a differential impact on ETFs according to their market depth. Market quality improves with competition for large or well-performing ETFs, while it worsens for small or under-performing ETFs. A case study on ETFs banned by the SEC in March 2010 further highlights our results in the artificially controlled competitive environment of the moratorium.     

How does competition affect bank risk-taking?

A common assumption in the academic literature and in the supervision of banking systems is that franchise value plays a key role in limiting bank risk-taking. As market power is the primary source of franchise value, reduced competition in banking markets has been seen as promoting banking stability. A recent paper by Martínez-Miera and Repullo (MMR, 2010) shows that a nonlinear relationship theoretically exists between bank competition and risk-taking in the loan market. We test this hypothesis using data from the Spanish banking system. After controlling for macroeconomic conditions and bank characteristics, we find support for this nonlinear relationship using standard measures of market concentration in both the loan and deposit markets. When direct measures of market power, such as Lerner indices, are used, the empirical results are more supportive of the original franchise value hypothesis, but only in the loan market. Overall, the results highlight the empirical relevance of the MMR model, even though further analysis across other banking markets is needed.     

Do government preferences matter for tax competition?

This paper explores how government preferences affect capital tax decisions of a country. We develop a model in which governments, differentiating in their preferences for economic development and income equality, compete for mobile capital over corporation taxes. The key prediction of the model, borne out in data from OECD countries over the years 1990–2012, is that an increase in government preferences for pursuing economic development relative to income equality makes countries’ horizontal tax reactions stronger. Unlike the existing studies, our result contributes to the tax competition literature by highlighting the importance of government preferences in determining the extent of tax competition among countries and so offering a novel explanation for the widely observed heterogeneous tax policies across countries.     

How did increased competition affect credit ratings?

The credit rating industry has historically been dominated by just two agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, leading to long-standing legislative and regulatory calls for increased competition. The material entry of a third rating agency (Fitch) to the competitive landscape offers a unique experiment to empirically examine how increased competition affects the credit ratings market. What we find is relatively troubling. Specifically, we discover that increased competition from Fitch coincides with lower quality ratings from the incumbents: Rating levels went up, the correlation between ratings and market-implied yields fell, and the ability of ratings to predict default deteriorated. We offer several possible explanations for these findings that are linked to existing theories.     

How does competition affect bank systemic risk?

Using bank level measures of competition and co-dependence, we show a robust negative relationship between bank competition and systemic risk. Whereas much of the extant literature has focused on the relationship between competition and the absolute level of risk of individual banks, in this paper we examine the correlation in the risk taking behavior of banks. We find that greater competition encourages banks to take on more diversified risks, making the banking system less fragile to shocks. Examining the impact of the institutional and regulatory environment on bank systemic risk shows that banking systems are more fragile in countries with weak supervision and private monitoring, greater government ownership of banks, and with public policies that restrict competition. We also find that the negative effect of lack of competition can be mitigated by a strong institutional environment that allows for efficient public and private monitoring of financial institutions.     

Does competition aggravate moral hazard? A Multi-Principal-Agent experiment

We conduct an experiment to determine whether market structure affects financial intermediary behavior. The intermediaries (Agents) are perfectly informed regarding project types and can recommend that their clients (Principals) either proceed or discontinue a project. Intermediaries earn revenues only when they recommend proceeding with the transaction. Thus, our design captures some of the incentives faced by financial advisers in commercial banks, where compensation depends on sales performance, and also by money-managers, whose income depends on the size of their portfolios. We find that a monopolist intermediary protects the interest of clients better than when intermediaries compete. Our results are robust to a significant fee increase and provide additional evidence on the impact of market structure on individual incentives and equilibrium outcomes.     

International tax competition: do public good spillovers matter?

We study the impact of public good spillovers on tax competition between two imperfectly integrated countries with different levels of productivity. We show that international public good spillovers, by reducing the tax gap between countries, strengthen the agglomeration of firms in the most productive country. Then we carry on a welfare analysis. We first assume that governments are engaged in a redistributive tax policy. At the non-cooperative equilibrium, the tax level in the high-productivity country is inefficiently high while it is inefficiently low in the other country. A different conclusion emerges when tax revenues are recycled in a public good provision: taxes are inefficiently low in both countries and public good spillovers increase the global welfare. Finally, for a given amount of total tax revenues, public good provision in the high-productivity country is inefficiently high compared to its level in the low-productivity country.     

Does banking system transparency enhance bank competition? Cross-country evidence

There seems to be a consensus among regulators and scholars that in order to improve the functioning of a banking system it is necessary to raise the level of bank information disclosure. However, its influence on bank competition – which is an important factor affecting the efficiency and stability of the banking system – is left out of consideration. To test whether greater bank information disclosure is associated with both lower market power and lower concentration in the banking markets, we use country-level data covering the years 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2010. Our findings show that countries with higher levels of bank transparency have lower levels of bank concentration, while the link between transparency and market power is less pronounced. We also show that the reduction of competition due to stricter disclosure requirements depends on bank credit risks and the relationship is U-shaped.     

Is it the weather?

We show that results in the recent strand of the literature, which tries to explain stock returns by weather induced mood shifts of investors, might be data-driven inference. More specifically, we consider two recent studies [Kamstra, Mark J., Kramer, Lisa A., Levi, Maurice D., 2003a. Winter blues: A SAD stock market cycle. American Economic Review 93(1), 324–343; Cao, Melanie, Wei, Jason, 2005. Stock market returns: A note on temperature anomaly. Journal of Banking and Finance 29(6), 1559–1573] that claim that a seasonal anomaly in stock returns is caused by mood changes of investors due to lack of daylight and temperature variations, respectively. While we confirm earlier results in the literature that there is indeed a strong seasonal effect in stock returns in many countries: stock market returns tend to be significantly lower during summer and fall months than during winter and spring months as documented by Bouman and Jacobsen [Bouman, Sven, Jacobsen, Ben, 2002. The Halloween indicator, Sell in May and go away: Another puzzle. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1618–1635], there is little evidence in favor of a SAD or temperature explanation. In fact, we find that a simple winter/summer dummy best describes this seasonality. Our results suggest that without any further evidence the correlation between weather-related variables and stock returns might be spurious and the conclusion that weather affects stock returns through mood changes of investors is premature.     

Is Bitcoin Really Untethered?

This paper investigates whether Tether, a digital currency pegged to the U.S. dollar, influenced Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices during the 2017 boom. Using algorithms to analyze blockchain data, we find that purchases with Tether are timed following market downturns and result in sizable increases in Bitcoin prices. The flow is attributable to one entity, clusters below round prices, induces asymmetric autocorrelations in Bitcoin, and suggests insufficient Tether reserves before month-ends. Rather than demand from cash investors, these patterns are most consistent with the supply-based hypothesis of unbacked digital money inflating cryptocurrency prices.     

Is Chapter 11 Efficient?

The efficiency of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process is examined by estimating the impact of Chapter 11 filings on the operating performance of bankrupt firms. We control for firm‐level heterogeneity in prefiling characteristics using matching methods to select benchmark firms comparable to filing firms. We compare bankrupt firms’ operating performances with those of matched nonbankrupt firms. Our results challenge the contention that Chapter 11 is an inefficient, debtor‐friendly mechanism that rehabilitates economically nonviable firms. We demonstrate that firms that file under Chapter 11 perform no worse and, if anything, better than comparable nonfiling firms.     

Is recovery risk priced?

Recovery risk to explain corporate debt premia has not received much attention so far, most likely due to the difficulties around decomposing the expected loss. We exploit the fact that differently-ranking debt instruments of the same issuer face identical default risk but different default-conditional recovery rates. This allows us to isolate implied recovery under the T-forward measure without any of the rigid assumptions employed by prior studies. We find a pronounced systematic component in recovery rates for which investors should receive a premium. Comparisons to physical realizations show that the premium is quite time-stable and similar for different debt seniorities.     

Is momentum really momentum?

Momentum is primarily driven by firms' performance 12 to seven months prior to portfolio formation, not by a tendency of rising and falling stocks to keep rising and falling. Strategies based on recent past performance generate positive returns but are less profitable than those based on intermediate horizon past performance, especially among the largest, most liquid stocks. These facts are not particular to the momentum observed in the cross section of US equities. Similar results hold for momentum strategies trading international equity indices, commodities, and currencies.     

Is creative accounting dead?

Because it has been seen as a short‐sighted way for local authorities to escape from the Government's expenditure controls, creative accounting now has a bad reputation. However, creativity will be needed in accounting, as in every other aspect of management, if local authorities are to stand a chance of facing up to the challenges of the 1990s.     

What Is Systemic Risk?

The traditional view of risk in a financial system is that it is the summation of individual risks within the system. However, the financial crisis that started in 2007 has driven home that this view of risk is inadequate. It is the interactions of financial institutions and markets that determine the systemic risks that drive financial crises. We identify four types of systemic risk. These are (i) panics—banking crises due to multiple equilibria; (ii) banking crises due to asset price falls; (iii) contagion; and (iv) foreign exchange mismatches in the banking system.     

Does exposure to product market competition influence insider trading profitability?

We examine whether and how product market competition affects insider trading profitability. We empirically show that the insiders of firms in highly competitive industries make higher abnormal profits. Our identification strategy includes both a quasi-natural experiment setting and an instrumental variable approach to address endogeneity concerns. We also run an extensive array of robustness checks and find that our baseline results remain substantially unchanged. Our cross-sectional analyses show that insider trading profitability is more pronounced for firms with: a higher level of trade secrecy, a higher level of R&D, a lower level of management voluntary disclosures, less readable 10-K reports and highly tone-ambiguous financial disclosures. We also find that our results are robust to the inclusion of corporate governance mechanisms. Overall, this study is consistent with the theoretical predictions that support the information asymmetry and proprietary cost channels of competition and that increases in competition lead insiders to undertake more rent-seeking activity.     

Can cost increases increase competition? Asymmetric information and equilibrium prices

We present an analysis of competition under asymmetric information where prices react asymmetrically to changes in firms' marginal costs. When one firm has private information about some customers, an increase in an uninformed firm's marginal cost leads to a price increase, as usual. However, an increase in the informed firm's marginal cost causes the equilibrium price to fall by improving the distribution of customers served by the uninformed firm. The model applies to settings where information asymmetries are important determinants of competition, such as credit, insurance, labor markets, or for the sale of goods where repeat business is important.