This study examines the spillover effect of bank financial misconduct on the uninsured deposits of peer banks within local markets. We first validate that misconduct banks experience an increase in deposit spreads and a corresponding outflow of deposits following the misconduct. We then show local peer banks exhibit divergent deposit responses, contingent on how misconduct is perceived by information recipients in different economic contexts. During normal periods, depositors receiving a negative signal about bank misconduct reallocate their funds from misconduct banks to local peers, a local reallocation effect that decreases deposit spreads and increases deposit inflows for peer banks. Cross‐sectional analysis further reveals that this local reallocation effect is more pronounced for financially sophisticated depositors, amplified when peer banks have strong fundamentals, but attenuated when misconduct banks are financially sound. During financial crisis periods, however, bank misconduct leads to withdrawals from both misconduct banks and their peer banks, a local contagion effect whereby local peer banks face increased deposit spreads and deposit outflows following the misconduct.

This study exploits the staggered adoption of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) by U.S. state courts as an exogenous shock that generates variations in the proprietary costs of disclosure. We find that firms respond to IDD adoption by reducing the level of disclosure regarding their customers’ identities, supporting the proprietary cost hypothesis. Our results are stronger for firms in industries with a higher degree of entry threats, for firms in more volatile industries, and for firms with a lower degree of external financing dependence. Overall, this study represents one of the first efforts in identifying the causal effect of proprietary costs of disclosure on the supply of disclosure.