This paper uses three alternating changes in hedge fund regulation to study whether regulation reduces hedge funds’ misreporting, and, if so, why regulation is effective. Relative to public companies, hedge fund regulation is relatively light. Much of the regime is a “comply‐or‐explain” framework that allows funds to forego compliance with governance rules, providing that they disclose their lack of compliance. The results show that regulation reduces misreporting at hedge funds. Further analysis suggests that the disclosure requirements led funds to make changes in their internal governance, such as hiring or switching the fund's auditor, and that these changes induced funds to report their financial performance more accurately.

We examine a controversial process, known as expungement, which allows brokers to remove evidence of financial misconduct from public records. From 2007 to 2016, we identify 6660 expungement requests, suggesting that brokers attempt to expunge 12% of the allegations of misconduct reported by customers and firms. When these requests are adjudicated on the merits, arbitrators approve expungement 84% of the time. We show that expungements significantly predict future misconduct; brokers with prior expungements are 3.3 times as likely to engage in new misconduct as the average broker. Further, using an instrumental variable based on the random assignment of arbitrators, we present evidence that brokers who receive expungement are more likely to reoffend than brokers who are denied expungement. We also show that successful expungements improve long-term career prospects.