No abstract

No abstract

We assess the role of banks in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a large and unprecedented smallbusiness support program instituted as a response to the COVID-19 crisis in the United States. In 2020, the PPP administered more than $525 billion in loans and grants to small businesses through the banking system. First, we provide empirical evidence of heterogeneity in the allocation of PPP loans. Firms that were larger and less affected by the COVID-19 crisis received loans earlier, even in a within-bank analysis. Second, we develop a model of PPP allocation through banks that is consistent with the data. We show that research designs based on bank or regional shocks in PPP disbursement, common in the empirical literature, cannot directly identify the overall effect of the program. Bank targeting implies that these designs can, at best, recover the effect of the PPP on a set of firms that is endogenous, changes over time, and is systematically different from the overall set of firms that ultimately receive PPP loans. We propose and implement a model-based method to estimate the overall effect of the program and find that the PPP saved 7.5 million jobs.

We utilize Dun & Bradstreet data on firms' financial condition to examine the allocation of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and their impact. Three main findings emerge. First, firms in better financial condition prior to the COVID outbreak were advantaged in the allocation of PPP loans. Second, firms' financial condition improved significantly and persistently after receiving a loan, and this effect was more pronounced among the smaller and less financially sound firms. Third, we demonstrate empirically that the heterogeneity in firms' financial condition must be accounted for to correctly identify and estimate the overall effect of the PPP.

Credit availability from different sources varies greatly across firms and has firm-level effects on investment decisions and aggregate effects on output. We develop a theoretical framework in which firms decide endogenously at the extensive and intensive margins of different funding sources to study the role of firm choices on the transmission of credit supply shocks to the real economy. As in the data, firms can borrow from different banks, issue bonds, or raise equity through retained earnings to fund productive investment. Our model is calibrated to detailed firm-and loan-level data and reproduces stylized empirical facts: Larger, more productive firms rely on more banks and more sources of funding; smaller firms mostly rely on a small number of banks and internal funding. Our quantitative analysis shows that bank credit supply shocks lead to a sizable reduction in aggregate output, with substantial heterogeneity across firms, due to the lack of substitutability among alternative credit sources. Finally, we show that our insights have important implications for the validity of standard empirical methods used to identify credit supply effects (Khwaja and Mian 2008).