The events of September 11, 2001, prompted sweeping cross-border coordination efforts for securities regulators around the globe. After 9/11, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) forged a nonbinding arrangement—the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information (MMoU)—that standardized the protocol for information sharing among participating securities regulators. Because regulators from different countries entered the MMoU at different times, their enlistments created a set of staggered shocks. I use these shocks to show that the resulting cross-border cooperation (a) increases cross-border enforcement and (b) reduces the cost of liquidity provision in the capital markets of participating countries. These results support the conclusion that the MMoU helps fill gaps in cross-border regulation that historically exposed investors to information asymmetry, agency costs, and expropriation risks.

ABSTRACT This study shows that the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) enforcement intensity toward the foreign firms under its jurisdiction has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Because enforcement events signify an increased threat of future enforcement, I examine the stock returns of foreign firms not targeted by the SEC during windows around enforcement actions that target foreign firms. This design captures the net effects of public enforcement and helps to rule out omitted variables as alternative explanations, because other factors would have to align with enforcement events that do not occur in an obvious pattern (and are therefore unlikely to map onto other news). Nontarget firms experience positive stock returns during the event windows, which is consistent with enforcement constraining the risks of expropriation. The cross‐sectional pattern in returns reveals greater returns for firms from weak home legal environments. Finally, consistent with the market adjusting to a new enforcement regime, the magnitude of event returns declines over time. Overall, SEC enforcement is associated with increases in the value of foreign firms, supporting the premise of the legal bonding hypothesis.

This study tests whether cooperation between securities regulators influences global market integration. I measure cooperation using arrangements between securities regulators that enable enhanced cross-border enforcement, better regulatory decisions, and reduced compliance obligations for cross-border activities. These arrangements-formed at different times for different country pairs-are associated with an 11% increase in cross-border investment. I find similar increases using other proxies for market integration. Cross-border investment and market integration thus depend, in part, on regulators working together to extend legal and institutional capacities across borders. This reframes our understanding of the role of institutions in global capital markets.

We investigate the effect of cross-border regulatory cooperation in the enforcement of securities laws on global-mutual-fund portfolio allocations. Our research design exploits a shock to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s oversight of foreign firms cross-listed on a US stock exchange around the signing of the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MMoU), a non-binding, information-sharing arrangement between global securities regulators. In signatory countries, foreign investment in US-cross-listed firms increases by $110 billion relative to non-cross-listed firms. The strongest effects are for investors facing greater information asymmetries, those from countries closely linked to the US, and non-US foreign investors, suggesting significant spillover effects from international regulatory cooperation.