Internet Appendix to Shareholder Litigation and Ownership Structure: Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Similar documents
Institutional Investor Cliques and Governance: Internet Appendix

Internet Appendix for: Cyclical Dispersion in Expected Defaults

Internet Appendix for: Cyclical Dispersion in Expected Defaults

Appendix A. Mathematical Appendix

Online Appendix to. The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts

1. Logit and Linear Probability Models

Do Investors Value Dividend Smoothing Stocks Differently? Internet Appendix

Web Appendix for: Medicare Part D: Are Insurers Gaming the Low Income Subsidy Design? Francesco Decarolis (Boston University)

Web Appendix for: Medicare Part D: Are Insurers Gaming the Low Income Subsidy Design? Francesco Decarolis (Boston University)

Ownership, Concentration and Investment

Credit Cycles and Financial Verification

Local Culture and Dividends

CEO Attributes, Compensation, and Firm Value: Evidence from a Structural Estimation. Internet Appendix

Supplemental Table I. WTO impact by industry

Internet Appendix to Broad-based Employee Stock Ownership: Motives and Outcomes *

Internet Appendix for Does Banking Competition Affect Innovation? 1. Additional robustness checks

Online Appendix to Do Short-Sellers. Trade on Private Information or False. Information?

Online Appendix of. This appendix complements the evidence shown in the text. 1. Simulations

Tax Gap Map Tax Year 2006 ($ billions)

Government Debt and Capital Structure Decisions: International Evidence

How Are SNAP Benefits Spent? Evidence from a Retail Panel

Are Consultants to Blame for High CEO Pay?

Internet Appendix for Collateral Shocks and Corporate Employment

Percentiles, STATA, Box Plots, Standardizing, and Other Transformations

Internet Appendix for Do General Managerial Skills Spur Innovation?

Internet Appendix for Buyout Activity: The Impact of Aggregate Discount Rates

Supplemental Appendix for Cost Pass-Through to Higher Ethanol Blends at the Pump: Evidence from Minnesota Gas Station Data.

Appendix. A.1 Independent Random Effects (Baseline)

Table IA.1 CEO Pay-Size Elasticity and Increased Labor Demand Panel A: IPOs Scaled by Full Sample Industry Average

ONLINE APPENDIX (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) Appendix A: Appendix Figures and Tables

Public Employees as Politicians: Evidence from Close Elections

Internet Appendix: Costs and Benefits of Friendly Boards during Mergers and Acquisitions. Breno Schmidt Goizueta School of Business Emory University

Online Appendices for

The Impact of Shareholder Taxation on Merger and Acquisition Behavior

Monte Carlo Simulation (General Simulation Models)

Sources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As

Online Appendix for. Explaining Corporate Capital Structure: Product Markets, Leases, and Asset Similarity. Joshua D.

This document consists of three sections: Section IA.1 examines the sensitivity of our

Regression Discontinuity and. the Price Effects of Stock Market Indexing

Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective

Internet Appendix for: Does Going Public Affect Innovation?

DazStat. Introduction. Installation. DazStat is an Excel add-in for Excel 2003 and Excel 2007.

Inflation and the Evolution of Firm-Level Liquid Assets

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE doi /mnsc ec

URL:

Internet Appendix for Private Equity Firms Reputational Concerns and the Costs of Debt Financing. Rongbing Huang, Jay R. Ritter, and Donghang Zhang

Internet Appendix to Quid Pro Quo? What Factors Influence IPO Allocations to Investors?


Geographic Diffusion of Information and Stock Returns

Online appendix to Mark My Words: Information and the Fear of Declaring an Exchange Rate Regime

Online Appendix (Not For Publication)

Really Uncertain Business Cycles

For Online Publication. The macroeconomic effects of monetary policy: A new measure for the United Kingdom: Online Appendix

Washington University Fall Economics 487. Project Proposal due Monday 10/22 Final Project due Monday 12/3

Random Walks vs Random Variables. The Random Walk Model. Simple rate of return to an asset is: Simple rate of return


Citation for published version (APA): Shehzad, C. T. (2009). Panel studies on bank risks and crises Groningen: University of Groningen

Has the Propensity to Pay Out Declined?

Online Appendix A: Verification of Employer Responses

Acemoglu, et al (2008) cast doubt on the robustness of the cross-country empirical relationship between income and democracy. They demonstrate that

Financial Innovation and Borrowers: Evidence from Peer-to-Peer Lending

Table 1a (Robustness) Event study of stock returns surrounding announcements of Fortune ranking scores

Supplementary Material and Data for Catering Through Nominal Share Prices. Malcolm Baker, Robin Greenwood, and Jeffrey Wurgler October 1, 2008

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Stronger Risk Controls, Lower Risk: Evidence from U.S. Bank Holding Companies

Employment protection: Do firms perceptions match with legislation?

starting on 5/1/1953 up until 2/1/2017.

Online Appendix. Do Funds Make More When They Trade More?

Online Appendix Table 1. Robustness Checks: Impact of Meeting Frequency on Additional Outcomes. Control Mean. Controls Included

Investment and Capital Constraints: Repatriations Under the American Jobs Creation Act

Economic Development and the Margins of Trade: Are the Least Developed Countries Different?

Interest Rate Pass-Through: Mortgage Rates, Household Consumption, and Voluntary Deleveraging. Online Appendix

Playing to the Gallery: Corporate Policies and Equity Research Analysts

Internet Appendix to Leverage Constraints and Asset Prices: Insights from Mutual Fund Risk Taking

The cross section of expected stock returns

The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action: Online Appendix

Dot Plot: A graph for displaying a set of data. Each numerical value is represented by a dot placed above a horizontal number line.

APPENDIX to Pyramidal Ownership and the Creation of New Firms

Internet Appendix for Corporate Cash Shortfalls and Financing Decisions. Rongbing Huang and Jay R. Ritter. August 31, 2017

Conflict in Whispers and Analyst Forecasts: Which One Should Be Your Guide?

AP STATISTICS FALL SEMESTSER FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

Washington University Fall Economics 487

ONLINE APPENDIX. Concentrated Powers: Unilateral Executive Authority and Fiscal Policymaking in the American States

Factors in the returns on stock : inspiration from Fama and French asset pricing model

Dividend Changes and Future Profitability

Firm Manipulation and Take-up Rate of a 30 Percent. Temporary Corporate Income Tax Cut in Vietnam

SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE APPENDIX FOR: TECHNOLOGY AND COLLECTIVE ACTION: THE EFFECT OF CELL PHONE COVERAGE ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN AFRICA

The Comovements Along the Term Structure of Oil Forwards in Periods of High and Low Volatility: How Tight Are They?

Hedge fund Activism. Updated tables and figures. Hyunseob Kim Johnson Graduate School of Management Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Conservatism and stock return skewness

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats? IT growth in the US over the last 30 years

Institutional Investor Monitoring Motivation and the Marginal Value of Cash

Online appendix to Understanding Weak Capital Investment: the Role of Market Concentration and Intangibles

Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics

Risk, Insurance and Wages in General Equilibrium. A. Mushfiq Mobarak, Yale University Mark Rosenzweig, Yale University

Online Appendix for Unemployment Insurance as a Housing Market Stabilizer

1 Payroll Tax Legislation 2. 2 Severance Payments Legislation 3

The Role of APIs in the Economy

The Consistency between Analysts Earnings Forecast Errors and Recommendations

STAT 157 HW1 Solutions

Transcription:

Internet Appendix to Shareholder Litigation and Ownership Structure: Evidence from a Natural Experiment Alan D. Crane Andrew Koch First Draft: January 14, 2014 May 5, 2016 Crane is at Rice University, acrane@rice.edu. Koch is at University of Pittsburgh, awkoch@pitt.edu. We thank Lauren Cohen (editor), an anonymous associate editor, an anonymous referee, Alex Butler, Kevin Crotty, David De Angelis, Dave Denis, Diane Denis, Ken Lehn, Sébastien Michenaud, Shawn Thomas, Vahap Usyal (discussant), James Weston, and seminar participants at Depaul, University of Pittsburgh, Rice University, and University of Texas Alumni Conference for their helpful comments.

In this appendix we report several robustness checks and supplemental results that support the analysis in Shareholder Litigation and Ownership Structure: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. The following tables and figures are included in this appendix: 1. Table A1 presents detailed definitions of the variables used in the paper. These include the details on the treatment classification as well as control variables and additional variables of interest. 2. Table A2 presents additional robustness samples for the results in Table 3 of the text. These include a constant composition sample (Panel A) and sample that includes only firms that are at least 5 years old (Panel B). This table shows that our results are not driven by the entry of new firms with different ownership structures, but rather by changes in the ownership structures of existing firms. 3. Table A3 presents robustness to Table 4 of the paper. Panel A of Table A3 is the same specification presented in Table 4, but reports all coefficients that were suppressed for space in the paper. Panel B includes a shorter sample period (1996-2002) to show that the results are not sensitive to the number of years selected on either side of the treatment. 4. Table A4 presents robustness to definitions of ownership concentration and number of larger owners. In the paper, ownership concentration is defined as the concentration of the 20 largest owners and a large owner is defined as one with a position size of 2% or greater. In this table, we replicate the results of Table 3 and Table 4 under different thresholds for each of these outcomes. ˆ Panel A: Replication of Table 3 under four different thresholds of ownership concentration. 1

ˆ Panel B: Replication of Table 4 under four different thresholds of ownership concentration. ˆ Panel C: Replication of Table 3 under six different definitions of a large owner. ˆ Panel D: Replication of Table 4 under six different definitions of a large owner. 5. Figure A1 presents the results from placebo regressions. In this figure, we replicate the specification from Table 3 randomizing states to treatment groups. The histograms plot the point estimates and t-statistics from 5,000 randomizations. The vertical red lines show the estimate under the true treatment assignment. 2

Table A1: Variable Appendix Variable Definition Ninth Indicator variable equal to one if the headquarters location in 1998 is one of the following: CA,WA,OR,ID,AZ,MT,NV,AK,HI and zero otherwise. Post 1999 Indicator variable equal to one if the observation is after 1999. Treatment Interaction equal to Ninth*Post 1999. Book Equity Compustat variables ceq+txdb, minus preferred stock, which equals Compustat pstkrv or pstkl or upstk in that order, based on data availability. ln(market Equity) The natural of Compustat variables prcc c*cshpri. ln(market to Book) The natural log of Compustat variables ((prcc c*cshpri)+(dlc+dltt)+pstkl-txditc)/at ) Dividend Payer An indicator variable equal to one if Compustat variables (dvp+dvc) is greater than zero and zero otherwise. ROA Compustat variables (oibdp/at) and winsorized at the 1% level. Annual Return Compounded monthly CRSP returns for the 12 months prior to the reporting period. Institutional Ownership Number of shares owned by institutions (per Thomson-Reuters 13f) as a percent of total shares outstanding. Ownership Concentration Natural log of (ownership of the top 20 owners/(1-ownership of the top 20 owners)). Number of Large Owners Count of the number of institutional owners with positions greater than 2% of the firm s value. State Net Tax Revenue Annual state tax revenue minus subsidies obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. State GDP per Capita Annual GDP by state obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis State Unemployment Annual state unemployment obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. State Population Annual state population estimates from Federal Reserve Economic Data. High Vol Indicator variable equal to one if the standard deviation of daily returns over 1998 is in the top quartile and zero otherwise. High Negative Skewness Indicator variable equal to one if the skewness of daily returns over 1998 is in the bottom quartile and zero otherwise. Low Minimum Return Indicator variable equal to one if firm s minimum monthly return in 1998 is in the bottom quartile and zero otherwise. California Indicator variable equal to one if the firm is headquartered in California and zero otherwise. Tech Industry Indicator variable equal to one if the firm s SIC code is one of the following: 2830, 2831, 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 3570, 3680, 3681, 3682, 3683, 3684, 3685, 3686, 3687, 3688, 3689, 3695, 7373, 3622, 3661, 3662, 3663, 3664, 3665, 3666, 3669, 3679, 3810, or 3812. Ninth Circuit Covariance The sensitivity of firm i s return to a portfolio of Ninth Circuit firms estimated by ri,t = αi + β i M MKTt + β i N Nintht + ɛ i,t and averaged over each firm in the industry. High Ninth Covariance Indicator variable equal to one if the firm s Ninth Circuit Covariance is in the top quartile. Zero CAR Indicator variable equal to one if the firm s 3-day return around the 1999 ruling is within the cross-sectional interquartile range. Connected Owner COj = 1 1998 5 1994 i owner i in firm j. ω i j C i where Ci is the clustering coefficient of large owner (2%) i and ω i j is the ownership of large 3

Table A2: The Effect of Litigation Laws on Ownership This table presents a difference in difference estimation of the effect of the 1999 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on ownership structure. Each column estimates the effect on a different measure of ownership structure, including Institutional Ownership, Ownership Concentration, and the Number of Large Positions. These variables are defined in Appendix A. Each panel estimates the effect on different samples as indicated in the sub-caption. The main variable of interest, Treatment, is the interaction of two indicator variables, Ninth Circuit and Post 1999. Ninth Circuit takes a value of one if the firm is subject to (headquartered in) the 1999 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Post 1999 takes a value of one if the observation is after 1999. Dividend Payer t 1 is an indicator variable equal to one if the firm the paid a dividend in the prior year, and zero otherwise. Ln(Market Equity) t 1 is the natural log of the lagged dollar market equity value(in millions deflated to 2005 dollars) of the firm and Ln(Market to Book) t 1 measures the natural log of the lag ratio of market value of equity to book value of equity. ROA t 1 is the lagged measure of operating income before interest and depreciation scaled by prior periods total assets. Annual returns measure the compounded monthly returns for the 12 months prior to the reporting period. Standard errors are clustered by firm with t-statistics reported in parenthesis and significance represented according to: p < 0.10, p < 0.05, p < 0.01. Panel A: Constant Composition Sample 1991-2007 Inst. Ownership Ownership Concentration Number of Large Positions Treatment 5.88*** 0.23** 0.77** (3.17) (2.24) (2.45) Ln(Market Equity) t 1 8.49*** 0.37*** 0.82*** (13.09) (8.90) (7.49) Ln(Market to Book) t 1-5.19*** -0.20*** -0.71*** (-5.63) (-3.37) (-4.75) Dividend Payer t 1-3.17*** -0.12-0.13 (-2.89) (-1.48) (-0.76) ROA t 1 5.19** 0.36** 0.74* (2.19) (2.18) (1.77) Annual Return t 1-0.22-0.02-0.02 (-0.69) (-1.24) (-0.36) State Net Tax Revenue t 1 0.08 0.00 0.02* (1.09) (0.01) (1.95) State GDP per Capita t 1-0.07-0.01 0.02 (-0.32) (-0.75) (0.51) State Unemployment t 1 383.57-9.79 36.71 (0.92) (-0.36) (0.49) Population t 1-0.96-0.03-0.27*** (-1.49) (-1.16) (-3.53) Observations 9083 9083 9083 Year Effects YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES 4

Panel B: Firms Older than 5 Years Inst. Ownership Ownership Concentration Number of Large Positions Treatment 5.83*** 0.19*** 0.78*** (4.53) (2.67) (3.75) Ln(Market Equity) t 1 7.78*** 0.32*** 0.82*** (19.93) (12.62) (13.38) Ln(Market to Book) t 1-3.09*** -0.14*** -0.44*** (-5.31) (-3.90) (-5.31) Dividend Payer t 1-2.38*** -0.06-0.14 (-3.81) (-1.45) (-1.36) ROA t 1 3.97*** 0.36*** 0.65*** (2.85) (3.47) (3.17) Annual Return t 1-0.01-0.00 0.04 (-0.07) (-0.30) (1.25) State Net Tax Revenue t 1 0.02-0.00 0.01 (0.43) (-0.37) (1.41) State GDP per Capita t 1-0.17-0.00-0.00 (-1.17) (-0.42) (-0.13) State Unemployment t 1-61.96-0.37 33.68 (-0.26) (-0.02) (0.84) Population t 1-0.67* -0.02-0.19*** (-1.80) (-0.80) (-3.62) Observations 23168 23168 23168 Year Effects YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES 5

Table A3: Difference in Difference Regression: Propensity Matched Sample (Alternative Samples) This table presents a difference in difference estimation of the effect of the 1999 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on institutional ownership. The regression is estimated on a propensity matched sample. Panel A presents the treatment effect regressions. Each column estimates the effect on a different measure of ownership structure, including Institutional Ownership, Ownership Concentration, and the Number of Large Positions. These variables are defined in Appendix A. The main variable of interest, Treatment, is the interaction of two indicator variables, Ninth Circuit and Post 1999. Ninth Circuit takes a value of one if the firm is subject to (headquartered in) the 1999 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Post 1999 takes a value of one if the observation is after 1999. Dividend Payer t 1 is an indicator variable equal to one if the firm the paid a dividend in the prior year, and zero otherwise. Ln(Market Equity) t 1 is the natural log of the lagged dollar market equity value(in millions deflated to 2005 dollars) of the firm and Ln(Market to Book) t 1 measures the natural log of the lag ratio of market value of equity to book value of equity. ROA t 1 is the lagged measure of operating income before interest and depreciation scaled by prior periods total assets. Annual returns measure the compounded monthly returns for the 12 months prior to the reporting period. Panel B presents the treatment effect estimation over a shorter window, from 1996-2002. Standard errors are clustered by firm with t-statistics reported in parenthesis and significance represented according to: p < 0.10, p < 0.05, p < 0.01. Panel A: Propensity Matched Sample: All Covariates Reported Inst. Ownership Ownership Concentration Number of Large Positions Treatment 6.49*** 0.23*** 0.87*** (4.90) (3.12) (4.14) Ln(Market Equity) t 1 7.86*** 0.34*** 0.74*** (18.86) (12.22) (11.42) Ln(Market to Book) t 1-3.81*** -0.20*** -0.46*** (-5.93) (-4.94) (-4.68) Dividend Payer t 1-2.35*** -0.10** -0.15 (-3.39) (-2.20) (-1.35) ROA t 1 4.68*** 0.44*** 0.79*** (3.11) (3.69) (3.32) Annual Return t 1 0.21 0.02 0.06* (1.11) (1.52) (1.77) State Net Tax Revenue t 1 0.03-0.00 0.02* (0.46) (-0.17) (1.81) State GDP per Capita t 1-0.02-0.00 0.00 (-0.13) (-0.34) (0.11) State Unemployment t 1 139.38 5.96 42.59 (0.53) (0.34) (1.01) Population t 1-0.73-0.02-0.23*** (-1.42) (-0.92) (-3.46) Observations 17534 17534 17534 Year Effects YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES Panel B: Propensity Matched Sample 1996-2002 Inst. Ownership Ownership Concentration Number of Large Positions Treatment 3.99*** 0.17*** 0.54*** (3.46) (2.66) (2.82) Ln(Market Equity) t 1 5.75*** 0.31*** 0.60*** (11.43) (8.86) (7.10) Ln(Market to Book) t 1-0.80-0.10* -0.12 (-1.13) (-1.78) (-0.98) Dividend Payer t 1-1.12-0.06-0.08 (-1.24) (-0.84) (-0.56) ROA t 1 4.80** 0.28** 0.51 (2.44) (2.00) (1.64) Annual Return t 1 0.13 0.01 0.04 (0.51) (0.42) (0.73) State Net Tax Revenue t 1-0.08-0.00 0.01 (-0.54) (-0.51) (0.28) State GDP per Capita t 1-0.01-0.02 0.01 (-0.04) (-1.27) (0.40) State Unemployment t 1 727.67 30.35 20.67 (1.50) (0.85) (0.25) Population t 1-0.34-0.01-0.17 (-0.35) (-0.35) (-1.25) Observations 6768 6768 6768 Year Effects YES YES YES Firm Effects YES 6 YES YES

Table A4: Difference in Difference Regression: Different thresholds for Large Owners This table presents a difference in difference estimation of the effect of the 1999 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on institutional ownership. Each column estimates the effect on a different measure of ownership concentration. The dependent variables are defined in Appendix I. The main variable of interest, Treatment, is the interaction of two indicator variables, Ninth Circuit and Post 1999. Ninth Circuit that takes a value of one if the firm is subject to (headquartered in) the 1999 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dividend Payert 1 is an indicator variable equal to one if the firm the paid a dividend in the prior year, and zero otherwise. Ln(Market Equity)t 1 is the natural log of the lagged dollar market equity value(in millions deflated to 2005 dollars) of the firm and Ln(Market to Book)t 1 measures the natural log of the lag ratio of market value of equity to book value of equity. ROAt 1 is the lagged measure of operating income before interest and depreciation scaled by prior periods total assets. Annual returns measure the compounded monthly returns for the 12 months prior to the reporting period. Panel A: Baseline Sample - Concentration Concent. of Top 5 Concent. of Top 10 Concent. of Top 20 Concent. of Top 50 Treatment 0.11** 0.14** 0.18*** 0.24*** (2.02) (2.36) (2.90) (3.61) Ln(Market Equity)t 1 0.21*** 0.27*** 0.34*** 0.43*** (10.79) (12.86) (15.15) (18.17) Ln(Market to Book)t 1-0.14*** -0.15*** -0.16*** -0.18*** (-4.74) (-4.87) (-5.04) (-5.50) Dividend Payert 1-0.05-0.06-0.07* -0.09** (-1.43) (-1.48) (-1.67) (-2.17) ROAt 1 0.31*** 0.37*** 0.42*** 0.45*** (3.53) (4.01) (4.35) (4.47) Annual Returnt 1 0.01 0.01 0.02** 0.02** (0.79) (1.55) (2.22) (2.56) State Net Tax Revenuet 1-0.00-0.00-0.00-0.00 (-1.16) (-1.04) (-0.76) (-0.39) State GDP per Capitat 1-0.00-0.00-0.00-0.01 (-0.05) (-0.20) (-0.39) (-0.78) State Unemploymentt 1 0.34 1.33 1.33 0.17 (0.02) (0.09) (0.09) (0.01) Populationt 1 0.01 0.00-0.00-0.01 (0.30) (0.17) (-0.00) (-0.34) Observations 26832 26832 26832 26832 Year Effects YES YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES YES 7

Panel B: Propensity Score Matched Sample - Concentration Concent. of Top 5 Concent. of Top 10 Concent. of Top 20 Concent. of Top 50 Treatment 0.15** 0.18** 0.22*** 0.29*** (2.25) (2.56) (3.04) (3.65) Ln(Market Equity)t 1 0.22*** 0.28*** 0.34*** 0.43*** (8.87) (10.55) (12.37) (14.69) Ln(Market to Book)t 1-0.19*** -0.20*** -0.21*** -0.23*** (-4.73) (-4.93) (-5.09) (-5.33) Dividend Payert 1-0.09** -0.09** -0.10** -0.12** (-2.20) (-2.10) (-2.15) (-2.43) ROAt 1 0.33*** 0.39*** 0.43*** 0.46*** (2.96) (3.31) (3.58) (3.75) Annual Returnt 1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02* (0.51) (1.10) (1.59) (1.87) State Net Tax Revenuet 1-0.00-0.00-0.00 0.00 (-0.58) (-0.51) (-0.22) (0.25) State GDP per Capitat 1-0.00-0.00-0.01-0.01 (-0.38) (-0.47) (-0.56) (-0.88) State Unemploymentt 1 7.01 7.35 7.06 5.49 (0.45) (0.46) (0.43) (0.32) Populationt 1-0.01-0.01-0.02-0.03 (-0.34) (-0.45) (-0.67) (-0.99) Observations 18105 18105 18105 18105 Year Effects YES YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES YES 8

Panel C: Baseline Sample - Number of Positions Num 1% Num 2% Num 3% Num 4% Num 5% Num 10% Treatment 1.31*** 0.59*** 0.28** 0.18* 0.14* 0.04 (4.41) (3.38) (2.34) (1.93) (1.82) (1.34) Ln(Market Equity)t 1 1.90*** 0.83*** 0.41*** 0.24*** 0.16*** 0.03** (21.21) (15.49) (10.26) (7.74) (6.52) (2.54) Ln(Market to Book)t 1-0.54*** -0.41*** -0.29*** -0.25*** -0.22*** -0.02 (-4.39) (-5.49) (-5.14) (-5.78) (-6.54) (-1.57) Dividend Payert 1-0.36** -0.20** -0.13** -0.08-0.10** -0.04** (-2.23) (-2.16) (-2.05) (-1.51) (-2.21) (-2.22) ROAt 1 1.71*** 0.83*** 0.46*** 0.24** 0.09-0.02 (4.85) (4.07) (3.05) (2.05) (0.93) (-0.63) Annual Returnt 1 0.16*** 0.06** 0.01-0.01-0.02** -0.01** (3.73) (2.30) (0.52) (-0.74) (-2.41) (-2.58) State Net Tax Revenuet 1 0.01 0.01* 0.00-0.00-0.00 0.00 (1.07) (1.65) (0.54) (-0.17) (-0.65) (0.29) State GDP per Capitat 1-0.05-0.02-0.01-0.01-0.00-0.00 (-1.39) (-0.86) (-0.32) (-0.78) (-0.21) (-0.94) State Unemploymentt 1-29.38 15.91 33.52 10.55-2.85-5.97 (-0.45) (0.41) (1.19) (0.47) (-0.15) (-0.76) Populationt 1-0.19-0.18*** -0.09*** -0.05* -0.02 0.01 (-1.64) (-3.68) (-2.71) (-1.89) (-0.79) (0.59) Observations 26832 26832 26832 26832 26832 26832 Year Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES 9

Panel D: Propensity Score Matched Sample - Number of Positions Num 1% Num 2% Num 3% Num 4% Num 5% Num 10% Treatment 1.64*** 0.87*** 0.45*** 0.27** 0.19** 0.05 (4.43) (4.14) (3.17) (2.36) (2.05) (1.32) Ln(Market Equity)t 1 1.79*** 0.74*** 0.36*** 0.20*** 0.14*** 0.03** (16.49) (11.42) (7.86) (5.85) (5.06) (2.14) Ln(Market to Book)t 1-0.55*** -0.46*** -0.37*** -0.33*** -0.28*** -0.04** (-3.69) (-4.68) (-5.51) (-6.51) (-7.06) (-2.30) Dividend Payert 1-0.28-0.15-0.12-0.09-0.13** -0.07*** (-1.48) (-1.35) (-1.46) (-1.39) (-2.52) (-2.74) ROAt 1 1.83*** 0.79*** 0.49*** 0.28** 0.11-0.01 (4.62) (3.32) (2.68) (2.12) (0.98) (-0.19) Annual Returnt 1 0.17*** 0.06* 0.01 0.01-0.02-0.01 (2.83) (1.77) (0.47) (0.33) (-1.51) (-1.58) State Net Tax Revenuet 1 0.02 0.02* 0.01-0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.18) (1.81) (0.99) (-0.12) (0.03) (0.20) State GDP per Capitat 1-0.02 0.00 0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00 (-0.56) (0.11) (0.44) (-0.43) (0.17) (0.10) State Unemploymentt 1 25.27 42.59 49.44* 5.74-2.64-4.00 (0.36) (1.01) (1.66) (0.24) (-0.13) (-0.46) Populationt 1-0.27-0.23*** -0.12*** -0.06* -0.04 0.01 (-1.50) (-3.46) (-2.73) (-1.68) (-1.27) (0.35) Observations 17534 17534 17534 17534 17534 17534 Year Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES Firm Effects YES YES YES YES YES YES 10

Figure A1: Placebo Treatment Group Coefficient Estimates and t-statistics This figure presents the results of 5,000 placebo regressions where states are randomly assigned to treatment. Each coefficient and t-statistic is estimated following the specification from Table 3, Panel A. (a) Institutional Ownership Placebo Simulations - Coefficients (b) Concentration Placebo Simulations - Coefficients (c) Number of Large Owners Placebo Simulations - Coefficients (d) Institutional Ownership Placebo Simulations - t-stat (e) Concentration Placebo Simulations - t-stat (f) Number of Large Owners Placebo Simulations - t-stat 11