This study examines whether an increase in the transparency of investment transactions facilitates portfolio mimicking. While there are reported benefits of transparency in enhancing regulatory monitoring and discipline, an increase in the transparency of investment transactions can also facilitate mimicking of peer firms’ investment strategies. I exploit an exogenous increase in the broad dissemination of transaction-level investment disclosures of U.S.-based insurers and find a significant increase in portfolio similarity at the individual security level. Increases in portfolio similarity are more pronounced in smaller, less sophisticated insurers mimicking their larger, more sophisticated peers. Shared asset positions and common exposures to risk can exacerbate collective risk across firms. Accordingly, I find that the detectable increases in portfolio similarity are positively associated with measures of systemic risk, especially in those smaller insurers mimicking their peers. This study adds to a nascent literature on portfolio mimicking and highlights a potential negative externality of increased transparency.

Using the IPO setting, we test whether firms signal the quality of their investments in innovation activities by claiming R&D tax credits. We find the presence and amount of the R&D credit are each associated with lower information asymmetry and with higher investor demand at IPO. Conservatively, we estimate that sample firms realize additional IPO proceeds of 32–45 percent of their creditable R&D expenditures, indicating economically significant non-tax benefits associated with the R&D credit. We verify the R&D credit signal by showing its positive association with firms’ future patenting activity, patent citations, and post-IPO stock returns. Results from these tests are concentrated among firms limited in their ability to obtain tax benefits from R&D credits, consistent with the R&D credit providing nontax benefits as a signal of innovation investment quality.

We examine the effect of fair value standards on firms' litigation risk. The discretion required by fair value allows plaintiffs to “second guess” managers' judgments, potentially increasing litigation risk. Alternatively, the complexity of fair value may decrease litigation risk if it's more difficult to demonstrate scienter. Our evidence suggests firms that rely more on fair value standards are relatively less likely to be sued. We find no evidence of a relation between fair value and the risk of misstatements or fraud, but do find evidence of a slight increase in firms' litigation risk via an increase in volatility. However, the primary effect of fair value standards in reducing litigation risk dominates the volatility effect. Finally, we find average litigation rates increase after the passage of new standards, but less so for fair value standards. On balance, our evidence suggests fair value is a relatively low litigation risk area in GAAP.