<p>I can think of at least one paper where binding accounting rules are shown to have negative consequences on real investment:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/roshak/Kevin_Roshak_Job_Market_Paper.pdf" rel="nofollow">Can Tight Accounting Oversight Distort Investment? Evidence from Mortgage Restructurings after the JOBS Act</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Abstract: I study the effect of accounting oversight on a bank’s level
  of troubled mortgage restructurings. <strong>If banks manage their accounting
  numbers (e.g. regulatory capital or earnings) in the wake of the
  financial crisis, then they may be hesitant to restructure troubled
  loans because such restructurings require the bank to mark the value
  of the loans down</strong>. I show that giving a bank more accounting
  discretion leads the bank to restructure more troubled mortgages. My
  identification strategy uses a provision of the Jumpstart Our Business
  Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 that allows a subset of banks to
  deregister from the SEC. The first stage of the analysis shows that
  accounting oversight is of first-order importance in the
  deregistration decision; in particular, there is a sharp increase in
  the probability of deregistration from 7% to 30% for banks that can
  escape accounting oversight. By instrumenting for the decision to
  deregister with the bank’s newfound eligibility to deregister after
  the JOBS Act, I show that deregistration leads banks to slash their
  accounting and audit fees and make fewer provisions for loan losses. I
  next show that deregistration induces banks to double their investment
  in mortgage restructurings, which entail large upfront accounting
  expenses; this effect is driven by banks with low capital ratios, and
  estimates for non-mortgage troubled debt restructurings react
  similarly. <strong>These results suggest that banks manage their capital using
  real activities</strong>, and this is one reason for the low level of mortgage
  restructurings since the recession.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-07T13:30:40.243Z
2015-02-07T13:30:40.243Z
BKay
<p>I'm looking for empirical evidence (optimally from natural experiments, as described below) of the impact of working capital constraints onto firm output, and the differentials of firm size.</p>

<p>I suppose that generally, stricter working capital constraints are bad for output, and typically these constraints are stronger for smaller firms (measured in output) and younger firms. However, I couldn't manage to find (a) paper(s) to establish that fact yet. </p>

<p>Where by working capital constraint I mean something along the lines of Kiyotaki&amp;Moore (1997)</p>

<p>$$L, K: f(wL, rK) \leq \psi(F(K,L))$$</p>

<p>, for example, for some constant $\psi_0$,</p>

<p>$$wL + rK \leq \psi_0 \cdot F(K,L)$$</p>

<p>where $F(\cdot)$ is the production function, and $f$ and $\psi$ can be whatever.</p>

<p><em>I have, in other environments, seen that some people take bank liquidity to approximate $\psi$ and argue that for example the last recession was a natural experiment on a change of $\psi$.</em></p>

<p>So, one type of useful regression table would be (on the firm level)</p>

<ul>
<li><em>dependent variable:</em> output</li>
<li><em>independent variables:</em></li>
<li>Increase of financial constraint (here, decrease of $\psi_0$)</li>
<li>Dummy for firm size (or different size bins)</li>
<li>And/Or: Dummy for firm age (or different age bins)</li>
<li>additional controls</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>One example</strong> would be Chodorow-Reich (2014, QJE). The two downsides with that paper are that </p>

<ul>
<li>He uses employment, not output as dependent variable (but that's tolerable)</li>
<li>He does not actually list the coefficients on the dummies for size. He just includes them as controls.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-24T05:34:01.113Z
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "working capital constraints." The constraint written seems really general and so I'm having a hard time imagining an example of what you might mean. Could you maybe give a more explicit example?
jmbejara
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-25T18:21:16.510Z
@jmbejara : I hope my update helped clearing it up
FooBar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-26T19:16:23.330Z
With your equation $$wL + rK \leq \psi_0 \cdot F(K,L)$$, do you have in mind a setting where a firm would like to spend more on inputs to production but is constrained? Because that situation sounds a lot like "time to build" models of productive capacity.
BKay
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-26T19:29:59.160Z
@BKay Yes, they're constraint, but not due to technology, but rather a liquidity shock, if you will. Cash-in-Advance, with insufficient cash at hands.
FooBar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-30T04:44:54.573Z
So, I understand that you're looking for empirical evidence for this kind of thing. Do you have any theory papers that describe in more detail the mechanism that might cause the drop in production?
jmbejara
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-30T11:59:06.380Z
@jmbejara The (static) mechanism would be  Kiyotaki&Moore (1997). What Im looking after is empirical evidence for the impact of changing these collateral requirements in their "credit cycles".
FooBar
<microeconomics><financial-economics><liquidity><reference-request><financial-constraints>
Impact of working capital constraints onto output
FooBar
# Impact of working capital constraints onto output

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-23)

I'm looking for empirical evidence (optimally from natural experiments, as described below) of the impact of working capital constraints onto firm output, and the differentials of firm size.

I suppose that generally, stricter working capital constraints are bad for output, and typically these constraints are stronger for smaller firms (measured in output) and younger firms. However, I couldn't manage to find (a) paper(s) to establish that fact yet.

Where by working capital constraint I mean something along the lines of Kiyotaki&Moore (1997)

$$L, K: f(wL, rK) \leq \psi(F(K,L))$$

, for example, for some constant $\psi\_0$,

$$wL + rK \leq \psi\_0 \cdot F(K,L)$$

where $F(\cdot)$ is the production function, and $f$ and $\psi$ can be whatever.

*I have, in other environments, seen that some people take bank liquidity to approximate $\psi$ and argue that for example the last recession was a natural experiment on a change of $\psi$.*

So, one type of useful regression table would be (on the firm level)

* *dependent variable:* output
* *independent variables:*
* Increase of financial constraint (here, decrease of $\psi\_0$)
* Dummy for firm size (or different size bins)
* And/Or: Dummy for firm age (or different age bins)
* additional controls

**One example** would be Chodorow-Reich (2014, QJE). The two downsides with that paper are that

* He uses employment, not output as dependent variable (but that's tolerable)
* He does not actually list the coefficients on the dummies for size. He just includes them as controls.

**Tags:** microeconomics, financial-economics, liquidity, reference-request, financial-constraints
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "working capital constraints." The constraint written seems really general and so I'm having a hard time imagining an example of what you might mean. Could you maybe give a more explicit example?  
> **username_0**: @jmbejara : I hope my update helped clearing it up  
> **username_2**: With your equation $$wL + rK \leq \psi_0 \cdot F(K,L)$$, do you have in mind a setting where a firm would like to spend more on inputs to production but is constrained? Because that situation sounds a lot like "time to build" models of productive capacity.  
> **username_0**: @BKay Yes, they're constraint, but not due to technology, but rather a liquidity shock, if you will. Cash-in-Advance, with insufficient cash at hands.  
> **username_1**: So, I understand that you're looking for empirical evidence for this kind of thing. Do you have any theory papers that describe in more detail the mechanism that might cause the drop in production?  
> **username_0**: @jmbejara The (static) mechanism would be  Kiyotaki&Moore (1997). What Im looking after is empirical evidence for the impact of changing these collateral requirements in their "credit cycles".  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-02-07. Score: 1

I can think of at least one paper where binding accounting rules are shown to have negative consequences on real investment:

[Can Tight Accounting Oversight Distort Investment? Evidence from Mortgage Restructurings after the JOBS Act](http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/roshak/Kevin_Roshak_Job_Market_Paper.pdf)

> Abstract: I study the effect of accounting oversight on a bank’s level
> of troubled mortgage restructurings. **If banks manage their accounting
> numbers (e.g. regulatory capital or earnings) in the wake of the
> financial crisis, then they may be hesitant to restructure troubled
> loans because such restructurings require the bank to mark the value
> of the loans down**. I show that giving a bank more accounting
> discretion leads the bank to restructure more troubled mortgages. My
> identification strategy uses a provision of the Jumpstart Our Business
> Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 that allows a subset of banks to
> deregister from the SEC. The first stage of the analysis shows that
> accounting oversight is of first-order importance in the
> deregistration decision; in particular, there is a sharp increase in
> the probability of deregistration from 7% to 30% for banks that can
> escape accounting oversight. By instrumenting for the decision to
> deregister with the bank’s newfound eligibility to deregister after
> the JOBS Act, I show that deregistration leads banks to slash their
> accounting and audit fees and make fewer provisions for loan losses. I
> next show that deregistration induces banks to double their investment
> in mortgage restructurings, which entail large upfront accounting
> expenses; this effect is driven by banks with low capital ratios, and
> estimates for non-mortgage troubled debt restructurings react
> similarly. **These results suggest that banks manage their capital using
> real activities**, and this is one reason for the low level of mortgage
> restructurings since the recession.


---

