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.

This paper examines the relation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and tax–motivated income shifting. Using a profit–shifting measure estimated from multinational enterprises (MNEs) data, we find that parent firms with higher CSR scores shift significantly more profits to their low-tax foreign subsidiaries. Overall, our evidence suggests that MNEs engaging in CSR activities acquire legitimacy and moral capital that temper negative responses by stakeholders and thus have greater scope and chance to engage in unethical profit-shifting activities, consistent with the legitimacy theory.

We test whether organizational risk management matters to bondholders of U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), and find that debt financing costs increase when the BHC has lower-quality risk management. Consistent with bailouts giving rise to moral hazard among bank creditors, we find that bondholders put less emphasis on risk management in large institutions for which bailouts are expected ex-ante. BHCs that maintained strong risk management before the financial crisis had lower debt costs during and after the crisis, compared to other banks. Overall, quality risk management can curtail risk exposures at BHCs and result in lower debt costs.

Forschungsergebnisse aus den letzten Jahren zeigen: Renditen von so genannten „Sin Stocks“, das heißt Aktien von Unternehmen, die aus Sicht der Investoren moralisch verwerflichen Tätigkeiten nachgehen, sind durchschnittlich höher als Renditen anderer Unternehmen. Aber warum gibt es hier einen Unterschied, und was könnten die Faktoren sein, die diesen Unterschied hervorrufen? Ein neues Arbeitspapier des IWH zeigt theoretisch und datenbasiert, wodurch unterschiedliche Renditen hervorgerufen werden. Dabei werden bisherige Erklärungsversuche, die auf dem so genannten „Boykott-Risiko“ basieren, um neue Ansätze ergänzt. Es werden zunächst in einem theoretischen Rahmen Situationen beschrieben, in denen die Möglichkeit, ethische Ansprüche der Investoren durch höhere Dividendenzahlungen zu ersetzen, sowie die Risikobereitschaft der Investoren die zentrale Rolle für unterschiedliche Renditen spielen. Im zweiten Teil werden diese hypothetischen Szenarien anhand von Daten zu US-Firmen über 50 Jahre getestet. Es zeigt sich, dass insbesondere Investoren, die sehr risikoscheu sind und lieber höhere Dividendenzahlungen von Unternehmen erhalten würden, die ihren ethischen Ansprüchen genügen, für ihr eingegangenes Risiko mittels höherer Erträge kompensiert werden wollen.

We analyze the impact of credit default swap (CDS) trading on bank syndication activity. Theoretically, the effect of CDS trading is ambiguous: on the one hand, CDS can improve risk-sharing and hence be a more flexible risk management tool than loan syndication; on the other hand, CDS trading can reduce bank monitoring incentives. We document that banks are less likely to syndicate loans and retain a larger loan fraction once CDS are actively traded on the borrower’s debt. We then discern the risk management and the moral hazard channel. We find no evidence that the reduced likelihood to syndicate loans is a result of increased moral hazard problems.

Einlagensicherungsmechanismen sind Bestandteil vieler Finanzsysteme und sollen in Krisenzeiten einen Ansturm der Sparer auf Banken und daraus resultierende Ansteckungseffekte verhindern. Jedoch bergen Sicherungssysteme zusätzliche Risikoanreize für Kreditinstitute, da eine solche Versicherung die Überwachungsanreize der Einlagengeber reduziert. Im Zuge der Finanzkrise von 2007 bis 2009 ist es in vielen Ländern zu Reformen hinsichtlich der Einlagensicherungssysteme gekommen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert die jüngste Anhebung der Einlagensicherungsgrenze in den USA von 100 000 auf 250 000 US-Dollar aus dem Jahr 2008 vor dem Hintergrund eines aktuellen Forschungsbeitrags. Dieser zeigt deutlich, dass durch die Erhöhung der Einlagensicherung in den USA das Risiko der Banken, die von der Erhöhung besonders profitierten, deutlich gestiegen ist, und gibt damit Hinweise auf den bekannten Zielkonflikt von Einlagensicherungssystemen: kurzfristige Stabilisierung während einer Krise gegenüber langfristigen Risikoanreizen für Banken.

In 2001, government guarantees for savings banks in Germany were removed following a lawsuit. We use this natural experiment to examine the effect of government guarantees on bank risk-taking. The results suggest that banks whose government guarantee was removed reduced credit risk by cutting off the riskiest borrowers from credit. Using a difference-in-differences approach we show that none of these effects are present in a control group of German banks to whom the guarantee was not applicable. Furthermore, savings banks adjusted their liabilities away from risk-sensitive debt instruments after the removal of the guarantee, while we do not observe this for the control group. We also document that yield spreads of savings banks’ bonds increased significantly right after the announcement of the decision to remove guarantees, while the yield spread of a sample of bonds issued by the control group remained unchanged. The evidence implies that public guarantees may be associated with substantial moral hazard effects.

The agreement to establish a Single Supervisory Mechanism in Europe is a major step towards a Banking Union, consisting of centralized powers for the supervision of banks, the restructuring and resolution of distressed banks, and a common deposit insurance system. In this paper, we argue that the Banking Union is a necessary complement to the common currency and the Internal Market for capital. However, due care needs to be taken that steps towards a Banking Union are taken in the right sequence and that liability and control remain at the same level throughout. The following elements are important. First, establishing a Single Supervisory Mechanism under the roof of the ECB and within the framework of the current EU treaties does not ensure a sufficient degree of independence of supervision and monetary policy. Second, a European institution for the restructuring and resolution of banks should be established and equipped with sufficient powers. Third, a fiscal backstop for bank restructuring is needed. The ESM can play a role but additional fiscal burden sharing agreements are needed. Direct recapitalization of banks through the ESM should not be possible until legacy assets on banks’ balance sheets have been cleaned up. Fourth, introducing European-wide deposit insurance in the current situation would entail the mutualisation of legacy assets, thus contributing to moral hazard.