Complaints from institutional investors suggest that principles‐based disclosure regimes that rely on financial materiality standards produce inadequate nonfinancial environmental and social (E&S) information. Using the staggered introduction of 40 country‐level regulations that mandate disclosure, I document that reporting E&S information relates to increased investment from institutional owners and has material effects on firms’ investment and financing decisions. Firms mandated to disclose E&S information allocate more investment toward long‐term, innovative projects and raise more equity capital. Evidence indicates that disclosure attracts long‐term–oriented institutional clientele with E&S preferences, which then feeds back on firm decision making. Although the effects of nonfinancial disclosure are similar to those of improved financial disclosure, this clientele mechanism is unique. Taken together, these results suggest that jurisdictions that rely solely on financial materiality disclosure standards create nonfinancial information frictions with material effects on investors and firm decision making.

I study venture capital firms’ (VCs) use of public market information and how attention to this information relates to private market investment outcomes. I link web traffic to public filings hosted on EDGAR to individual VCs. VCs analyze public information about industry peers before most deals. An increase in industry filing views relates positively to the probability of an exit through acquisition, suggesting that public information helps identify paths to acquisition. The effect is stronger when the VC has less access to private information, especially for low-reputation VCs. Policymakers should consider spillover effects on private markets when setting public disclosure requirements.

The rise in passively managed corporate debt funds has resulted in an increasingly inelastic demand for corporate debt. In this study, we quantify how passive debt ownership affects firms’ financial policy. Using fund-specific flows to capture firm-level changes in passive debt ownership that are exogenous to firm fundamentals, we find that firms respond to higher levels of passive debt ownership by increasing leverage. The borrower-friendly terms provided by passive debtholders could also theoretically lead to several potential changes in investment or payout policy. We show that passive debt holding does not affect investment policy. Instead, higher passive ownership predicts increased dividend payouts—even for firms far from index thresholds—exacerbating shareholder-debtholder conflicts. Passive debtholders enable these effects by reducing aggregate ex-ante and ex-post monitoring. The presence of a bank monitor moderates the relationship between passive debt ownership and increased payout, reinforcing the importance of this monitoring channel.