This paper examines whether portfolio disclosure requirements for actively managed investment funds affect the investment decisions of the firms they own. We argue that mandatory portfolio disclosures reduce fund managers' incentive to collect and trade on private information, which reduces the stock price informativeness of their portfolio, and thus portfolio firm managers' ability to learn from their firms' stock prices. Using a difference-in-differences design around the May 2004 SEC regulation requiring more frequent fund disclosure, we find that investment sensitivity to stock price declines for firms with significant ownership held by actively managed funds affected by the regulation. The decline in investment-price sensitivity is concentrated among firms that are (i) owned by funds with larger expected proprietary costs and (ii) more likely to learn from price. Our results suggest that portfolio disclosure requirements have spillover effects on corporate investment by curtailing managers’ opportunities to learn from price.

We provide evidence that the documented weakening of the accrual–cash flow association results not from a loss of accrual accounting usefulness per se, but from the deviation from accrual accounting as it relates to intangible investments. More specifically, the weakening of the negative association is driven by the combined effects of (1) increasing intangible investments, (2) the practice of expensing rather than capitalizing intangible investments, and (3) scaling accruals and cash flows by book value of assets, which are understated for intangible‐intensive firms. Treating intangible expenditures as capitalized investments and scaling accruals and cash flows by market value of equity, which reflects the value of intangible investments, (1) substantially strengthens the negative association between accruals and cash flows and (2) practically eliminates the apparent weakening trend in the association.

This paper examines whether common ownership – i.e., instances where investors simultaneously own significant stakes in competing firms – affects voluntary disclosure. We argue that common ownership (i) reduces proprietary cost concerns of disclosure, and (ii) incentivizes firms to “internalize” the externality benefits of their disclosure for co-owned peer firms. Accordingly, we find a positive relation between common ownership and disclosure. Evidence from cross-sectional tests and a quasi-natural experiment based on financial institution mergers help mitigate concerns that our results are explained by an omitted variable bias or reverse causality. Finally, we find that common ownership is associated with increased market liquidity.