Using a data set of public procurement auctions and registered shareholders of all bidding firms in Singapore, we study the effects of ownership networks on prices and efficiency in product markets. We find participating bidders with common owners or common owners’ owners are more likely to submit identical bids, and the identical bids are associated with higher contract prices. Our structural estimates suggest removing ownership network effects improves a procurer’s cost efficiency. Our findings are robust to falsification tests, bid rounding concerns, placebo tests using other common stakeholder relationships, and weighting based on a machine-learning prediction of the auction format.

From January 2011 through March 2018, the Bank of Japan purchased equity index exchange-traded funds (ETFs) worth about 3.5% of GDP. Identification of the effect of central bank ETF purchases on stock valuations and corporate responses is via differently-weighted and changing stock indices. BOJ purchases lift valuations, increase share issuances, and increase total assets. On average, the latter increase is due to cash and short-term securities rather than capital investment. However, firms with worse corporate governance do increase capital investment. These findings suggest central bank equity purchases are a problematic tool for stimulating economic growth through high broad-based private-sector corporate investment.

Active equity mutual funds that own shares in product-market competitors have higher risk-adjusted returns, even after fees. This positive association comes from their common ownership positions, and remains robust after controlling for industry concentration, common stock selection, and the tendency to invest in firms with more common ownership. These funds charge higher fees and are active voters: more likely to vote against executive pay-for-performance and for directors with existing directorships in competitors. Our findings suggest that actively managed equity mutual funds are incentivized to soften product-market competition, and proxy voting may serve as a mechanism for influencing corporate policy.

Compliance-driven investments in technology—or “RegTech”—are growing rapidly. To understand the effects on the financial sector, we study firms’ responses to new internal control requirements. Affected firms make significant investments in ERP and hardware. These expenditures then enable complementary investments that are leveraged for noncompliance purposes, leading to modest savings from avoided customer complaints and misconduct. IT budgets rise and profits fall, especially at small firms, and acquisition activity and market concentration increase. Our results illustrate how regulation can directly and indirectly affect technology adoption, which in turn affects noncompliance functions and market structure.

The Dodd-Frank Act shifted regulatory jurisdiction over “ midsize” investment advisers from the SEC to state-securities regulators. Client complaints against midsize advisers increased relative to those continuing under SEC oversight by 30 to 40 percent of the unconditional probability. Complaints increasingly cited fiduciary violations and rose more where state regulators had fewer resources. Advisers responding more to weaker oversight had past complaints, were located farther from regulators, faced less competition, had more conflicts of interest, and served primarily less-sophisticated clients. Our results inform optimal regulatory design in markets with informational asymmetries and search frictions.

In canonical models of investment dynamics under uncertainty, “time-to-build” in investment decisions implies that uncertainty negatively impacts firm values and aggregate capital productivity. However, capital budgeting, which involves ex-ante information acquisition and state-contingent investment decisions, can potentially ameliorate time-to-build frictions. Reduced-form evidence using firm-level data on sales and investment expectations and errors supports both mechanisms. Incorporating capital budgeting into a standard investment model, our calibrated model reveals that state-contingent investment planning and information acquisition reduce aggregate productivity losses by 41% and 17%, respectively. Moreover, gains from planning accrue primarily to less productive firms, while information acquisition benefits higher productivity ones.