Relative performance evaluation (RPE) increases competition and limits pay-for-luck by rewarding executives for outperforming rivals. This study tests whether institutional investors reduce RPE use when they own stakes in competing firms. Contrary to this, the Big Three asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – demonstrate strong preferences for RPE, reflected in portfolio firms’ RPE adoptions, say-on-pay vote support, and peer group selections. No evidence suggests that common ownership by these or other institutional investors reduces RPE, as confidence bounds and point estimates are near zero. Overall, the rising prevalence of RPE challenges concerns about anticompetitive effects from common ownership.

This paper studies banks’ investment in risk management human capital following the Global Financial Crisis and the advent of stress testing. Our results suggest that ‘Too Big to Fail’ distortions may have weakened large banks’ incentive to invest in risk management talent. Stress testing, which focuses on the largest banks, spurred demand for skilled quantitative risk managers, but only narrowly in anticipation of a test and following poor performance on a test. Stress testing does not affect demand for the over 90 % of risk management jobs not linked to passing tests, limiting its effectiveness in improving risk management practices.