Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang (2006a) show that stocks with high idiosyncratic return volatility tend to have low future returns. This paper further documents that idiosyncratic volatility is inversely related to future earning shocks, and more importantly, that the return-predictive power of idiosyncratic volatility is induced by its information content about future earnings. We examine various explanations of the triangular relation among idiosyncratic volatility, future earning shocks, and future stock returns. Our results show that the idiosyncratic volatility anomaly is not a simple manifestation of previously documented market anomalies related to excessive extrapolation on firm growth, over-investment tendency, accounting accruals, or investor underreaction to earnings news. On the other hand, there is evidence that the idiosyncratic volatility anomaly is related to corporate selective disclosure, and the anomaly is stronger among stocks with a less sophisticated investor base.

We develop a measure (based on the relative slopes of the demand and supply schedules) quantifying the asymmetric presence of liquidity traders in the market: a steeper slope of the demand (supply) schedule indicates a concentration of liquidity traders on the demand (supply) side. Using the opening session of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, we demonstrate the predictive power of our measure. Consistent with theory, we find that the concentration of liquidity traders on the demand (supply) side is negatively (positively) correlated with future returns. We find that liquidity traders are likely to arrive at the market together (commonality).

We examine the relationship between allegations of corporate misconduct and changes in profitability and risk of the alleged offender. Profitability is measured as reported earnings and analysts’ earnings forecasts. Risk is measured as stock return volatility and concordance among analysts’ forecasts. Decreases in earnings and increases in risk are found to accompany allegations of misconduct, and although the results are somewhat sensitive to the earnings and risk metrics used, the changes are found to be consistently greater for related-party offenses. The importance of reputational penalties is underscored by analysis of the association between allegation-related changes in firm value and changes in earnings and risk.

Individual and institutional investors can trade German initial public equity offerings on an as-if/when-issued basis before the start of secondary trading. Using actual when-issued trades made by a sample of clients at a large German retail broker during 1999 and 2000, the paper documents that retail buyers consistently overpay for initial public offerings (IPOs) in the when-issued market relative to the immediate aftermarket. The observed willingness to overpay points to sentiment as a driver of retail trading decisions. Consistent with this interpretation and with sentiment affecting prices, IPOs that are aggressively bought by individuals in the when-issued market exhibit high first-day returns as well as poor aftermarket returns relative to benchmarks of similar stocks.

Variables that in theory determine credit spreads have limited explanatory power in existing empirical work on corporate bond data. We investigate the linear relationship between theoretical determinants of default risk and default swap spreads. We find that estimated coefficients for a minimal set of theoretical determinants of default risk are consistent with theory and are significant statistically and economically. Volatility and leverage have substantial explanatory power in univariate and multivariate regressions. A principal component analysis of residuals and spreads indicates limited evidence for a residual common factor, confirming that the theoretical variables explain a significant amount of the variation in the data.

We uncover a positive stock market risk-return tradeoff after controlling for the covariance of market returns with the value premium. Fama and French (1996) conjecture that the value premium proxies for investment opportunities; therefore, by ignoring it, early specifications suffer from an omitted variable problem that causes a downward bias in the risk-return tradeoff estimation. We also document a positive relation between the value premium and its conditional variance, and the estimated conditional value premium is strongly countercyclical. The latter evidence supports the view that value is riskier than growth in bad times, when the price of risk is high.

Using a proprietary database of currency trades, this paper explores the effects of trading gains and losses on risk-taking among large institutional investors. We find that institutional investors, unlike individuals, are not prone to the disposition effect. Instead, institutions aggressively reduce risk following losses and mildly increase risk following gains. This asymmetry is more pronounced later in the calendar year and among older and more experienced funds. We show that such performance dependence is consistent with dynamic loss aversion (Barberis, Huang, and Santos (2001)) and overconfidence. In addition, prior institutional gains and losses have palpable implications for future prices.

This paper establishes liquidity linkage between stock and Treasury bond markets. There is a lead-lag relationship between illiquidity of the two markets and bidirectional Granger causality. The effect of stock illiquidity on bond illiquidity is consistent with flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity episodes. Monetary policy impacts illiquidity. The evidence indicates that bond illiquidity acts as a channel through which monetary policy shocks are transferred into the stock market. These effects are observed across illiquidity of bonds of different maturities and are especially pronounced for illiquidity of short-term maturities. The paper provides evidence of illiquidity integration between stock and bond markets.

This study uses a stochastic frontier approach to evaluate firm efficiency. The resulting efficiency score, based on firm characteristics, is the input for performance evaluation. The portfolio composed of highly efficient firms significantly underperforms the portfolio composed of inefficient firms even after adjustment for firm characteristics and risk factors, suggesting a required premium for the inefficient firms. The difference in performance between the two portfolios remains for at least five years after the portfolio formation year. In addition, firm efficiency exhibits significant explanatory power for average equity returns in cross-sectional analysis.