Welcome! I am a PhD Candidate in Finance at Yale University. My research interest lies in macrofinance, financial
institutions and central banking. I am currently studying how government debt supply and unconventional monetary
policy influence asset prices and broader corporate decisions.
Research Paper
[1] "When Treasuries Crowd
the Debt Market: Treasury Market Inelasticity and the Basis Trade"
Abstract +
Slides
This paper argues that the Treasury share relative to corporate bonds in the debt market affects Treasury market
elasticity-the price impact of new Treasury supply- and its pass-through to corporate bonds. I develop a segmented
market model featuring bond investors with duration mandates and balance-sheet constraints. These investors transmit
shocks from the Treasury market to the corporate bond market. When the Treasury share is high, investors rely more on
Treasuries for duration, their balance-sheet constraints tighten, and transmission weakens, leaving supply shocks
concentrated in Treasuries. The model explains elevated Treasury basis trade activity when Treasuries are abundant
relative to corporate bonds and links constraint tightness to the Treasury cash-derivatives spread. Empirically, I
identify three novel Treasury supply shocks from the Treasury issuance calendar and estimate Treasury supply effects
using intraday data. Consistent with the model, tighter balance-sheet constraints measured by the spread are
associated with larger Treasury supply effects and weaker pass-through to corporate bonds. I support the model with
unique institution-level data on interest rate derivative positions for global mutual funds and US life insurers. The
mechanism implies asymmetric effects of quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT) and informs the
optimal timing of QT.
[2] “How Do Quantitative
Easing and Tightening Affect Firms?”
with Egemen Eren and Denis Gorea, August 2025
Abstract +
BIS Version
We study how firms respond to quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT) policies of the Federal
Reserve. We construct a novel time series of maturity-specific central bank balance sheet shocks covering multiple QE
and QT programs. In response to central bank purchases of government bonds, we find that, on average, firms adjust
their debt maturity structure, reduce interest expenses and accumulate cash, while their total debt, capital and
employment remain largely unchanged. The impact of these policies differs depending on the targeted maturity segment
and the credit quality of firms. Policy transmission primarily runs via bond markets. There are positive spillovers to
high-rated non-US firms. Our findings can inform the design of balance sheet policies.
[3] “The Expansion and Dynamic Equilibrium Effects of
Institutional Landlords”
with Zhichun Wang, October 2025
Abstract +
This paper studies how dynamically formed cost efficiencies from scope and density drive institutional landlords’
expansion and, in turn, alter the distribution of welfare across heterogeneous households in single-family housing
markets. Institutional landlords convert owner-occupied homes into large, spatially clustered rental portfolios. They
constrain households’ access to homeownership while expanding rental opportunities. This leads households to
reoptimize between buying and renting, as buyers may face higher prices while renters may benefit from expanded choice
sets. We build a dynamic equilibrium model of landlord investment with three key features: (i) oligopolistic
landlords’ investment determines the evolution of housing supply structure, (ii) portfolio size and density introduce
endogenous variation in landlord costs, and (iii) households substitute within and across buying and renting in an
integrated choice set. We estimate the model using firm-property-level data from 2013 to 2022 in the Atlanta
metropolitan area. We find that institutional landlords’ expansion achieved a 60.03% reduction in maintenance cost
from economies of scope and density. Households’ total welfare increased, with varying effects across renters and
buyers. The majority of renters gained from expanded rental supply, while a small fraction of renters, together with
most buyers, lost from diminished access to affordable homeownership. Our findings have significant policy
implications for regulating institutional landlords’ expansion in the single-family home market.
