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 turbulenten Zeiten, die von anhaltenden geopolitischen Krisen, dem holprigen Regierungswechsel in Deutschland und volatilen Aktienmärkten geprägt sind, mögen die eine oder der andere Investor auf Betongold setzen. Ob dies eine gute Idee ist, zeigt ein Blick auf die Dynamik im europäischen Häusermarkt.

Die Wechselwirkungen zwischen Lieferketten und nachhaltiger Finanzierung haben sich zu einem zentralen Forschungsbereich in den Finanzmärkten entwickelt, angetrieben durch ein zunehmendes globales Bewusstsein für Umwelt- und soziale Herausforderungen. Artikel 1 untersucht, wie Kreditgeber Nachhaltigkeitsklauseln verwenden, um Kreditnehmer mit negativen Umweltvorfällen zu überwachen, und vergleicht die Verwendung dieser einzigartigen Kreditvertragsgestaltung mit konventionellen Kreditkonditionen, finanziellen und bilanzbezogenen Klauseln. Wir zeigen, dass Kreditgeber weniger geneigt sind, Nachhaltigkeitsklauseln in den Kreditvertrag aufzunehmen, wenn ein Kreditnehmer bereits zuvor negative Umweltvorfälle aufweist. Im Gegensatz dazu nutzen Kreditgeber Nachhaltigkeitsklauseln, um institutionelle Investoren für die Teilnahme an der Syndizierung zu gewinnen, anstatt sie als Überwachungsinstrumente für die Umweltleistung von Kreditnehmern zu verwenden. Artikel 2 untersucht, ob Banken, die mit dem Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt im Amazonasgebiet in Verbindung stehen, einen Abzug von Einlagen erfahren, wenn Einleger von deren Finanzierungstätigkeiten Kenntnis erlangen. Ich finde empirische Beweise dafür, dass sogenannte "Amazonas-Kohlenstoffbanken" ein geringeres Wachstum ihrer Einlagen verzeichnen, sobald Einleger von deren Finanzierungstätigkeiten erfahren. Dieser Effekt ist besonders ausgeprägt, wenn die Filiale der Amazonas-Kohlenstoffbanken in Landkreisen liegt, die im Vergleich zu anderen Filialen stärkere Verluste an biologischer Vielfalt aufweisen. Artikel 3, wie europäische Unternehmen, die stark in globale Lieferketten (GSC) eingebunden sind, von einer Lieferkettenunterbrechung (Covid-19) betroffen sind. Wir zeigen, dass Covid-19 das Umsatzwachstum von Unternehmen, die stark von der GSC im Heimatland abhängig sind, negativ beeinflussen. Besonders wichtig ist, dass wir die Rolle der Bankbeziehungen bei der Abmilderung der Störungseffekte aufdecken.

Does increasing common ownership influence firms’ automation strategies? We develop and empirically test a theory indicating that institutional investors’ common ownership drives firms that employ workers in the same local labor markets to boost automation-related innovation. First, we present a model integrating task-based production and common ownership, demonstrating that greater ownership overlap drives firms to internalize the impact of their automation decisions on the wage bills of local labor market competitors, leading to more automation and reduced employment. Second, we empirically validate the model’s predictions. Based on patent texts, the geographic distribution of firms’ labor forces at the establishment level, and exogenous increases in common ownership due to institutional investor mergers, we analyze the effects of rising common ownership on automation innovation within and across labor markets. Our findings reveal that firms experiencing a positive shock to common ownership with labor market rivals exhibit increased automation and decreased employment growth. Conversely, similar ownership shocks do not affect automation innovation if firms do not share local labor markets.

We investigate whether lenders employ sustainability pricing provisions to manage borrowers’ environmental risk. Using unexpected negative environmental incidents of borrowers as exogenous shocks that reveal information on environmental risk, we find that lenders manage borrowers’ environmental risk by conventional tools such as imposing higher interest rates, utilizing financial and net worth covenants, showing reluctance to refinance, and demanding increased collateral. In contrast, the inclusion of sustainability pricing provisions in loan agreements for high environmental risk borrowers is reduced by 11 percentage points. Our study suggests that sustainability pricing provisions may not primarily serve as risk management tools but rather as instruments to attract demand from institutional investors and facilitate secondary market transactions.

This paper investigates the impact of manager-investor interaction quality on stock returns by utilizing an online IPO roadshow dataset and leveraging a word-embedding model. We find that such interactions are positively valued, as reflected in initial returns. The effect is particularly pronounced for firms characterized by higher levels of information asymmetry, greater investor attention, increased question uncertainty, or discussions on topics not covered in prospectus. Additionally, our research reveals that effective management communication leads to increased first-day turnover rates and thus higher returns. These heightened returns persist up to 180 days following the IPO, without displaying a significant long-term reversal associated with interaction quality. These findings underscore the meaningful impact of the quality of manager-investor interactions on firm valuation.