|
on Corporate Finance |
| By: | Inna Abramova; John M. Barrios |
| Abstract: | Private equity (PE) has moved rapidly into professional services, yet its impact on accounting, where licensing regimes, reputational capital, and partnership governance traditionally limit external ownership, remains poorly understood. We examine how PE ownership alters the organization and market structure of accounting firms using data from 1999-2024 that link more than 3, 600 PE transactions to detailed information on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), labor markets, and audit pricing. PE investment increases sharply after 2020 and extends to both CPA-licensed audit firms and non-CPA advisory practices, with most activity in large mid-tier PCAOB-registered firms. After PE entry, firms grow faster: non-audit revenues rise, employment expands, and cross-state M&A accelerates, consistent with platform-building and consolidation. These adjustments have market-level implications. PE investment raises labor-market concentration in key accounting occupations and drives up ERISA audit fees in a standardized setting, as confirmed by a synthetic difference-in-differences design. Our results reveal a key tension at the core of professions: preserving independence and competition in a market increasingly driven by financial capital. |
| JEL: | G23 G34 J44 L2 L4 L84 M4 M41 M42 |
| Date: | 2025–12 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34575 |
| By: | Niessen-Ruenzi, Alexandra; Mueden, Vanessa; Zimmerer, Leah |
| Abstract: | Women are significantly less likely to participate in the stock market than men. We show that financial socialization plays an important role in explaining this gap. Survey data from Germany and the U.S. indicate that parents discuss financial matters less frequently with their daughters than with their sons. Women also report fewer financial role models and less exposure to peers who invest in the stock market. We find that this early-life difference in financial socialization leads to lower financial literacy and lower financial confidence of women later in life, and also explains why they are less likely to participate in the stock market than men. |
| Keywords: | Gender investment gap, Financial socialization, Financial literacy, Stock market participation |
| JEL: | G11 G41 G53 |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:333902 |
| By: | Osadchiy, Maksim |
| Abstract: | This paper extends the classical Vasicek credit risk model by introducing a comprehensive multi-factor framework that simultaneously incorporates key sources of portfolio heterogeneity – namely, variations in asset weights, recovery rates, default probabilities, and asset correlations. By modeling the complex interactions among these factors, our approach provides a more realistic and nuanced assessment of loss distributions and risk measures. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the extended Vasicek-style model yields accurate approximations of portfolio Value at Risk (VaR) across portfolios with diverse recovery profiles and moderate concentration levels. This advancement improves the precision of credit risk measurement, addresses current regulatory gaps, and offers a solid foundation for more sophisticated risk management of heterogeneous credit portfolios. |
| Keywords: | Heterogeneous Credit Portfolios; Granularity Adjustment; Vasicek Model; Value at Risk; Monte Carlo Simulation |
| JEL: | C63 G17 G21 G28 G32 G33 |
| Date: | 2025–11–27 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:127032 |
| By: | Roth, Felix; Rammer, Christian |
| Abstract: | Intangible assets have increasingly been identified as a main source of productivity gains. Since the pioneering work by Corrado, Hulten, and Sichel (2005), empirical research has largely focused on macro and industry-level studies, while firm-level studies have often been confined to a limited set of intangible assets, especially Research and Development (R&D). This paper employs a unique firm-level panel database that contains information on four types of intangible assets: R&D, software & databases (S&D), firm-specific human capital (HC), and brand value (BV). For R&D, we find much lower productivity returns than for S&D and HC. R&D even loses significance once controlling for other intangibles, except for high-tech manufacturing. In contrast to R&D, we find that S&D and HC tend to be the primary drivers of productivity gains, particularly in services. Our findings have implications for research policy, suggesting a stronger focus on supporting investment in non-R&D intangibles, including S&D and HC. |
| Keywords: | Non-R&D intangibles, productivity, R&D, digitalisation, firm-specific human capital, brand value, firm-level panel data |
| JEL: | E22 O33 O38 D24 |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:333901 |
| By: | Bafowaa, Bridget Yeboah; Rabinowitz, Adam; Secor, Will; Goeringer, Paul |
| Abstract: | Bankruptcy is a tool for alleviating financial stress for borrowers, enabling individuals and businesses to reorganize or discharge their financial obligations and obtain a fresh start. Chapter 12 of the US bankruptcy code is specifically designed for financially distressed farmers to seek debt relief through the US court system. Yet a recent study shows approximately 56% of farm bankruptcies with FSA loan obligations are filed under chapters 7, 11, or 13. Unlike the consumer who is usually faced with two options, chapters 7 or 13, farmers are faced with even more options, making it a more difficult decision to determine how to move forward through financial recovery. A deeper understanding is needed to explore the factors that influence farm debtors' decisions when selecting among different bankruptcy chapters. The data used in this study identifies farm bankruptcies filed under chapters in addition to chapter 12, providing a comprehensive view of all available avenues for farmers seeking financial protection through the court. Using farm debtors’ financial standings and agricultural and macroeconomic factors at the time of filing, we explore what determines the choice between reorganization and liquidation, and the choice among the different reorganization chapters: chapters 11, 12, and 13. This analysis offers valuable insights into the conditions under which some farmers opt for alternative chapters, even though chapter 12 is supposed to be specifically designed to meet their needs. Findings from this study can help policymakers assess whether chapter 12 provides sufficient protection for farmers. |
| Keywords: | Agricultural Finance, Farm Management |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aaea25:360679 |