We examine how firms respond to requests for enhanced disclosure that we make on an online investor platform. Exploiting variation in firms' customer and supplier disclosures, we ask a randomized set of non-disclosing firms to provide information on their customers' and suppliers' identities. We find that the firms' probability of disclosure depends on the basis we give for the demand—requests appealing to disclosure's usefulness to investors lead to more frequent disclosure, while those appealing to regulators' preference for disclosure lead to less frequent disclosure. The requests we make on the platform lead to more frequent customer- and supplier-related inquiries from other platform users. We also find that the treatment firms' disclosure of customer and supplier information improves in the next period's regulatory filings. The findings suggest that investor platforms can enhance corporate transparency by increasing retail investors' ability to demand information.

We find that Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) with greater career concerns are more diligent and conservative in preparing financial statements during an Initial Public Offering (IPO). Additional tests exploiting exogenous variation in managerial career concerns suggest that our documented relations are not sensitive to unobservable omitted factors. Furthermore, we document that CFOs who are relatively more concerned about their future job prospects are more sensitive when there is greater scrutiny or higher litigation risk and are less likely to succumb to undue pressures from influential shareholders to exaggerate the firm's prospects. Finally, we show that CFOs with longer decision horizons prefer more transparency during the IPO process, which in turn, translates to superior post-IPO performance and better labor market outcomes than their counterparts. Overall, our findings indicate that career concerns play a disciplining role during IPOs and that CFOs exploit these high-visibility events to accelerate their career trajectory.

We use matched employer-employee data to study the role of the firm in the transmission of income growth into consumption growth. We find that growth in income relative to the firm average (the within-firm component) translates significantly less into consumption than growth in firm average income (the between-firm component). These findings are explained by the lower persistence of the within-firm component of income, better self-insurance for workers more exposed to variations in income growth from the within-firm component, and peer effects in the workplace. Quantitatively, income persistence provides 43% of the explanatory power, self-insurance provides 35%, and peer effects provide 22%.