Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.27598

Do Customer Disclosures Affect Suppliers' Internal Capital Allocation Decisions?

Abstract

This study examines whether customer disclosures affect how supplier firms allocate capital across business segments. Customer disclosures can shape supplier investment decisions through two competing channels. They can improve suppliers' information about downstream demand, helping suppliers align capital with growth opportunities ("information channel"), or erode incumbent suppliers' private information advantage, inducing costly investments to defend customer relationships ("competitive-threat channel"). I use the adoption of SFAS 131 as a customer-level disclosure shock. Suppliers exposed to expanded customer disclosures experience increased product-market competition and reallocate capital toward segments with relatively weak growth-opportunity signals. Suppliers that deviate from allocations predicted by growth signals are more likely to preserve market share and expand their customer base in subsequent years. Using a novel approach to link supplier segments to customer segments, I show that this reallocation is driven by investing in capacity in affected segments, rather than by a correction of prior under-investment. Consistent with the competitive-threat channel, the investment adjustment is stronger for segments linked to larger customers and for segments operating in more concentrated industries. Segments making these investments subsequently experience lower ROA, consistent with suppliers accepting lower profitability to defend customer relationships. Overall, the findings show that disclosures can shape how economically linked firms allocate capital internally.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sangwook Nam. 2026-08-27. Do Customer Disclosures Affect Suppliers' Internal Capital Allocation Decisions?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27598

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN