The authors respond to a recent paper by Kaplan and Zingales (KZ) who argue that investment-cash flow sensitivities are not useful for detecting financing constraints. They critique KZ's theoretical model, which they claim does not accurately reflect the approach used in previous literature, and their empirical classification system, which they find flawed in identifying both the presence and degree of constraints. The authors argue that KZ's results do not support their conclusions about the usefulness of investment-cash flow sensitivities. They highlight issues with KZ's classification criteria, such as relying on managerial statements and quantitative measures that may not accurately reflect financial constraints. The authors conclude that KZ's findings are uninformative and that their paper contributes by clarifying the theoretical models used in the field.The authors respond to a recent paper by Kaplan and Zingales (KZ) who argue that investment-cash flow sensitivities are not useful for detecting financing constraints. They critique KZ's theoretical model, which they claim does not accurately reflect the approach used in previous literature, and their empirical classification system, which they find flawed in identifying both the presence and degree of constraints. The authors argue that KZ's results do not support their conclusions about the usefulness of investment-cash flow sensitivities. They highlight issues with KZ's classification criteria, such as relying on managerial statements and quantitative measures that may not accurately reflect financial constraints. The authors conclude that KZ's findings are uninformative and that their paper contributes by clarifying the theoretical models used in the field.