Abstract Downstream customer firms’ bargaining power can lead to suboptimal diversification in upstream suppliers’ innovation when customers cannot commit to a long-term relationship. After the revelation of financial fraud by a major customer, suppliers surprisingly outperform a control group in terms of sales growth, Tobin’s q, and survival likelihood over a 10-year period. Our results suggest that, before a fraud revelation, supplier managers’ short decision horizons and aversion to short-term risk enable influential customers to demand relation-specific innovation, leading to suboptimal diversification. When customer importance weakens, suppliers engage in riskier and novel innovation, thereby stimulating sales growth. (JEL G14, G3, L14, L24)

ABSTRACT We show that information complementarities play an important role in the spillover of transparency shocks. We exploit the revelation of financial misconduct by S&P 500 firms, and in a “Stacked Difference‐in‐Differences” design, find that the implied cost of capital increases for “close” industry peers of the fraudulent firms relative to “distant” industry peers. The spillover effect is particularly strong when the close peers and the fraudulent firm share common analyst coverage and common institutional ownership, which have been shown to be powerful proxies for fundamental linkages and information complementarities. We provide evidence that increase in the cost of capital of peer firms is due, at least in part, to “beta shocks.” Disclosure by close peers—especially those with co‐coverage and co‐ownership links—also increases following fraud revelation. Although disclosure remains high in the following years, the cost of equity starts to decrease.