Why is poor governance pervasive in the mutual fund industry? Researchers, practitioners and regulators have attributed this failing to a lack of director independence from fund management. This paper proposes an alternate explanation: fund governance is contagious. Fund directors act as vectors, transmitting governance attributes from their primary place of employment to the fund. Using hand-collected director employment data, the paper finds that boards dominated by directors tied to the finance industry, to shareholder unfriendly firms, and to shareholder unfriendly funds, have worse governance. Examining employment shocks, litigations and firm bankruptcies, within a quasi-experimental framework, provides causal evidence that these connections cause fund governance spillover. Overall, the results suggest that contagious governance plays a role in propagating business malpractice in the mutual fund industry.

We examine whether firms exploit enforcement heterogeneity in response to a heightened risk of investigation by regional Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement offices. We find that firms facing high SEC scrutiny risks are more likely to relocate outside the jurisdiction of the SEC regional office. The likelihood of out-of-SEC relocation becomes at least two times higher after exogenous shocks to local SEC enforcement. High scrutiny-risk firms tend to migrate to regions with weaker SEC enforcement history and regions with more peers engaging in misbehavior. Scrutiny shopping is more salient for firms with lower costs of relocation.