This study examines how classified boards affect workplace safety, an important dimension of employee welfare. Using comprehensive establishment-level injury data from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and a novel classified board database, we document that firms with classified boards experience 12-13% lower workplace injury rates. To establish causality, we employ instrumental variable and difference-in-differences approaches exploiting staggered board declassifications. The safety benefits of classified boards operate through increased safety expenditures, reduced employee workloads, and enhanced external monitoring through analyst coverage. These effects are strongest in financially constrained firms and those with weaker monitoring mechanisms. Our findings support the bonding hypothesis that anti-takeover provisions facilitate long-term value creation by protecting stakeholder relationships and provide novel evidence that classified boards benefit rank-and-file employees, not just executives and major customers. The results reveal an important mechanism through which governance structures impact employee welfare and challenge the conventional view that classified boards primarily serve managerial entrenchment.

Using a sample of U.S. commercial banks from 2009 to 2022, we find that the flow of non-core deposits, rather than that of core deposits, becomes more sensitive to bank performance as banks receive increased attention on Twitter. This effect is particularly pronounced during periods of poor bank performance, when Twitter discussions are more influential, and for banks with more liquidity mismatch. Our results suggest that social media, rather than merely disseminating information about bank performance, makes depositors aware of their peers’ attention to banks, thereby intensifying the sensitivity of deposit outflows to weak fundamentals.

The 2020 Holding Foreign Companies Accountable (HFCA) Act will force China-based firms to delist from U.S. exchanges if China fails to permit audit inspections during a two-year period. The Act also requires such firms, as soon as China blocks such inspections, to disclose ties to the Chinese party-state. We first explain why the delisting provisions, while well-intentioned, may well harm U.S. investors. We then turn to the disclosure provisions, explaining that they appear to be motivated by a desire to name-shame Chinese firms rather than to protect investors. While China-based firms do pose unique risks to U.S. investors, the Act fails to mitigate—and may well exacerbate—these risks.

The rise of automated trading systems has made stock trading more accessible and convenient, reducing the link between traditional illiquidity measures and stock returns. However, empirical data in China’s stock market shows conflicting results. We find a significantly positive correlation between intraday illiquidity and future returns in China’s stock market. We offer that the pricing ability of this intraday illiquidity originates from the correlation between trading activity and intraday return. This finding provides compelling out-of-sample evidence for the debate regarding the pricing of the Amihud (2002) measure in the U.S. market. Additionally, we create an intradayreturn illiquidity factor that outperforms Liu, Stambaugh, and Yuan (2019) sentiment factors in China’s stock market.

This study investigates how firms respond to restricted access to government information. Specifically, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which limits the stock trading activities of government officials (hereafter referred to as politicians), reduces the willingness of politicians from federal executive branches to engage with firms. Utilizing this exogenous disruption in private communication, we employ a difference-in-differences approach to demonstrate that firms with significant government customers decrease the frequency of management forecasts more than other firms due to the STOCK Act. This reduction is more pronounced for firms where government sales are crucial to their performance and for those that serve as suppliers and government contractors. Further, the positive impact of the STOCK Act on voluntary disclosures is more significant for firms that ex-ante rely heavily on direct political engagements, as indicated by their discussions of political risk and political contributions, and for those expecting government support, as evidenced by higher competition levels within their industry. Conversely, the STOCK Act does not significantly affect the non-financial disclosures of these firms. Finally, consistent with findings on executive branch officers, our results indicate that congressmen are also involved in corporate communications and are effectively regulated on information exchange by the STOCK Act. Overall, these results justify the powerful supervisory impact of the STOCK Act on the U.S. government and capital market and help to facilitate a new U.S. government information disclosure policy for a fairer investment environment.

We document a positive investment premium in the Chinese market, in contrast to the typical negative investment premium in other markets. The premium only exists when we measure investment by quarterly asset growth, not annual asset growth. A positive premium can be attributed to the fact that quarterly asset growth positively predicts future profitability and GDP growth in the Chinese market, whereas both relationships are negative in the U.S. market. Furthermore, Chinese firms have shorter operating cycles compared to those in the U.S., which explains why quarter data is more valuable.

This paper investigates the impact of two global crises, the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis, on herding behavior in the Chinese and U.S. stock markets. We find no evidence of herding behavior during these two global crises in the U.S. stock market, yet significant herding emerges under the COVID-19 crisis in Chinese mainland stock market. Additionally, the observed herding behavior in mainland China is primarily driven by sentiment. Our results reveal and explain the differences in the effects of financial crisis and public health crisis on herding behavior, as well as variations between emerging and developed stock markets.

Motivated by the growing importance of the Chinese domestic economy for the global economic condition, we test whether the consumption risk of China matters for the cross-section of U.S. equity returns. We find that the two-factor international assetpricing model with both U.S. and Chinese consumption risk explains 40% of the crosssectional variation in U.S. equity returns. We also find a sizable risk premium of 7.08% per annum. This finding is robust to different estimation approaches, portfolio groups, controlling for other equity factors, and using individual equities. For economic mechanism, we find that it is the discount rate channel that is related to investors’ risk aversion, sentiment, and economic uncertainty through which Chinese consumption matters for the U.S. equity returns. Also, the result is not entirely driven by Chinese investors participating in the U.S. Overall, we present equity market-based novel evidence of the importance of Chinese macro fundamentals for the U.S.

This paper is about investigating how different bank liquidity creation activities affect housing markets. Using data of 401 metropolitan statistical areas/metropolitan statistical area divisions (MSAs/MSADs) of the U.S. between 1990 and 2018, we show that not all bank liquidity creation activities boost the housing markets. In particular, unlike asset- side and off-balance sheet liquidity creations, funding-side liquidity creation dampens housing markets. The relationships between liquidity creation activities and housing markets are stronger in regions with inelastic house supply, but flip when banks face external liquidity shocks. We also find that housing markets dominated by large banks are more sensitive to off-balance sheet liquidity creation activities. Finally, as expected, asset-side and off-balance sheet liquidity creations boost housing markets by driving house prices away from fundamental values. Our results offer a more thorough explanation of how bank liquidity creation fuels the momentum of housing markets.

There is mixed evidence of a positive relationship between the stock market risk and return. We reexamine this critical implication of asset pricing theory using fresh data from China's stock market, which is largely segmented from the rest of the global financial market. Using formal variable selection methods and a comprehensive set of predictor variables, we identify conditional market variance, scaled market prices, and inflation as crucial determinants of equity premiums. The estimated simple risk-return relationship exhibits downward omitted variable bias, which underlines the importance of considering multiple factors to explain the variation in equity premiums. We cannot wholly attribute the three-factor conditional equity premium model to data mining, as Guo, Sanni, and Yu (2022) select the same model for the U.S. stock market. These findings challenge existing asset pricing models and provide valuable guidance for future theoretical research.