Firms increasingly rely on markets for technology to acquire innovations developed outside their boundaries, yet acquiring intellectual property rights alone often does not guarantee successful implementation. Many technologies depend on tacit know-how that must be supplied by the provider after the transaction is completed. This paper examines whether common ownership between a technology provider and a potential adopter mitigates this implementation problem. I develop a model in which overlapping institutional investors cause the provider to partially internalize the adopter’s gains from successful implementation, strengthening incentives to transfer tacit know-how. This mechanism operates only when know-how is unverifiable – absent this friction, common ownership leaves matching and outcomes unchanged. Under moral hazard, the model predicts that common ownership increases the likelihood of technology transfer to a given adopter, that this effect is stronger when tacit know-how is more important, and that common ownership improves post-transfer outcomes conditional on adoption. I test these predictions using U.S. patent reassignments between publicly traded firms. Using within-deal variation across competing potential adopters and plausibly exogenous variation from passive index-fund holdings, I show that common ownership increases the likelihood that a firm acquires a technology, particularly when the transferred bundle is more tacit. Common ownership predicts stronger subsequent innovation and higher future firm value, especially when ownership overlap is concentrated among investors with stronger incentives to monitor the provider. These findings show how ownership structure shapes interfirm technology transfer by affecting not only who acquires a technology, but also how much value is created.

In this paper, we use granular trading data from Taiwan between 2012 and 2016 to examine how local social capital influences retail investor behavior during corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR) events. Therefore, we are responding to longstanding calls in the international finance literature to explore investor behavior in non-US markets with distinct institutional and cultural characteristics. We find that investors residing in cities with higher social capital are less likely to purchase underpriced stocks following the announcements of negative events despite the potential for positive abnormal returns. This norm-driven restraint reflects a form of socially responsible investing motivated by community-based values rather than economic rationality. By documenting this behavior in an East Asian market, we extend the external validity of social norm theories developed in Western settings and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how localized social preferences can influence asset pricing and capital allocation in a global context.

Die Entscheidung für eine Ausbildung oder ein Studium im Bereich Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik (MINT) hängt nicht nur von absoluten Leistungen in Mathematik ab, sondern davon, wie gut Mathematik relativ zu anderen Fächern – etwa Sprache – gelingt. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die intergenerationale Übertragung solcher relativen Stärken in Mathematik und Sprache auf Basis niederländischer Testdaten von Eltern und ihren Kindern. Wir zeigen, dass Eltern, die im Verhältnis zu Sprache besonders gut in Mathematik abschneiden, mit deutlich höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit Kinder haben, die ebenfalls relativ besser in Mathematik sind. Zudem belegen wir, dass diese Übertragung relativer Stärken nicht ausschließlich genetisch oder familiär geprägt ist, sondern durch Schule und Lernumfeld – und damit durch Bildungspolitik – beeinflusst werden kann.