This article shows that correlated errors in news about fundamentals are an important, rational determinant of excess comovement. Individual analysts’ forecast errors tend to be correlated across stocks. Using a proxy for correlated forecast errors based on analyst coverage, I find that stocks with similar sets of analysts exhibit more excess comovement, controlling for industry and other variables. Exogenous changes in commonality in analyst coverage around i) brokerage firm mergers and ii) additions to an index lead to changes in excess comovement. This information channel explains 10% to 25% of the increase in comovement around additions to the S&P 500 index.

Abstract Previous research documents differences in trading desk skills across management companies that result in significant variation in execution costs. In this paper, we utilize links between management companies and their institutional clients to explore variation in execution costs within management companies. For a subset of management companies, we find that systematic differences in execution costs exist across clients; these differences are comparable to the variation documented across management companies and persist over time. Clients who receive lower execution costs reward management companies with an increase in dollar trading volume. We find no evidence that the results are driven by broker commissions or differences in trading practices. Given the economic significance of our findings and implications for institutional investors, this aspect of execution should be recognized regardless of the ultimate source of the differences.

Firms whose human capital is concentrated in a few irreplaceable employees lack diversification in their human capital stock, exposing them to key human capital risk. Using disclosures of “key man life insurance” to measure this risk, we show that exposed firms are riskier. These younger, smaller, growth firms have abnormally high volatility, and following announcement of key employee departures, the most exposed firms lose 8% of their value. Key employees tend to be highly educated. They are four times more likely to hold PhD degrees than top managers, and firms with key human capital are more innovative.

We propose a direct measure of abnormal institutional investor attention (AIA) using news searching and news reading activity for specific stocks on Bloomberg terminals. AIA is highly correlated with institutional trading measures and related to, but different from, other investor attention proxies. Contrasting AIA with retail attention measured by Google search activity, we find that institutional attention responds more quickly to major news events, leads retail attention, and facilitates permanent price adjustment. The well-documented price drifts following both earnings announcements and analyst recommendation changes are driven by announcements to which institutional investors fail to pay sufficient attention.

Abstract Governance practices differ significantly across blockholder types. Compared with financial blockholders, nonfinancial blockholders are six times more likely to identify as activists. A textual analysis of regulatory filings shows that nonfinancial blocks govern through customized governance actions, while financial blocks follow generic performance metrics. Furthermore, blockholdings drive an important limitation in using Russell index thresholds as an identification strategy. Manipulation of index weights by Russell is strongly correlated with nonfinancial block ownership, confounding previous research on passive ownership. Using both reduced-form and structural estimates, we find that the market expects greater value creation from the entry of a nonfinancial blockholder.

Comparing coverage of the same corporate financial news by the conservative Wall Street Journal and the liberal New York Times , we find strong evidence of political polarization in their reporting on both the intensive and extensive margins of coverage. We show that this politics-induced disagreement in corporate financial news leads to an increase in abnormal trading volume for the most politically extreme firms. Our results highlight a new source of investor disagreement, arising out of polarized reporting of corporate financial news, that generates trade among investors.

We propose a direct measure of abnormal institutional investor attention (AIA) using news searching and news reading activity for specific stocks on Bloomberg terminals. AIA is highly correlated with institutional trading measures and related to, but different from, other investor attention proxies. Contrasting AIA with retail attention measured by Google search activity, we find that institutional attention responds more quickly to major news events, leads retail attention, and facilitates permanent price adjustment. The well-documented price drifts following both earnings announcements and analyst recommendation changes are driven by announcements to which institutional investors fail to pay sufficient attention. Received February 24, 2016; editorial decision December 29, 2016 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

Abstract We examine the relationship between credit rating levels and rating agency fees in a public finance market in which rating agencies earn lower fees and face higher disclosure requirements relative to corporate bond and structured finance markets. Controlling for variation in the complexity of credit analysis at the issue level, we find evidence that rating agency conflicts of interest distort credit ratings in the municipal bond market. Unexpectedly expensive ratings are more likely downgraded, and inexpensive ratings are more likely upgraded. The relationship between credit ratings and rating agency fees is driven by issuers who lose access to AAA insurance.

A common belief held among researchers and policy makers is that regulatory reliance has inflated market demand for credit ratings, despite their decreasing informational value. Advances in information technology, coupled with reputation losses following the subprime crisis, renew the question of whether investors still rely on ratings to assess credit risk. Using Moody’s 2010 scale recalibration, which was unrelated to changing issuer fundamentals, we find that ratings still matter to investors and to issuers—apart from any regulatory implications. Our results commend improved disclosure to mitigate mechanistic reliance on ratings and inefficiencies due to rating standards that vary across asset classes. Received October 9, 2015; editorial decision June 7, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

ABSTRACT The SEC requires public companies to disclose material information on Form 8-K within four days of a triggering event. We show that on 8-K event and filing dates, there is significant abnormal attention on Bloomberg terminals, which are a source of information for institutional investors, while traditional media attention tends to be higher on filing days. Significant price discovery occurs on the event date and on the days between that day and the filing date. The traditional media coverage on the filing day appears to attract the attention of retail investors and leads to further price changes in the direction of the pre-filing day price change. Institutional investors exploit this price pressure via opportunistic liquidity provision. Overall, our evidence suggests that the Form 8-K filing may have little direct informational benefit, particularly to retail investors. JEL Classifications: D8; G1; G2; M4.