What are the causes and consequences of commonality in liquidity? We examine this issue using a model of liquidity trading in which liquidity shocks are decomposed into common (systematic) and idiosyncratic components. We show that common liquidity shocks do not give rise to commonality in trading volume. Indeed, trading volume is independent of systematic liquidity risk, and this risk is always priced irrespective of market liquidity. In contrast, idiosyncratic liquidity shocks create liquidity demand and volume, and investors can diversify their risk by trading. Hence, pricing of the risk of idiosyncratic liquidity shocks depends on market liquidity, with idiosyncratic liquidity risk being fully priced only in perfectly illiquid markets. While trading volume increases with the variance of idiosyncratic liquidity shocks, price volatility increases with the variance of both idiosyncratic and systematic liquidity shocks. Surprisingly, our results are largely independent of the number of different securities traded in the market. When asset returns are uncorrelated, there is no transmission of liquidity across assets even when investors experience common liquidity shocks, suggesting that such liquidity shocks may not be the source of commonality in liquidity across assets detected in the literature. However, under limited conditions, more liquid securities can act as substitutes for less liquid securities. Overall, our findings suggest that common factors in liquidity may be the outcome of covariation in investor heterogeneity (e.g., as measured by co-movements in the volatility of idiosyncratic liquidity shocks) rather than of common liquidity shocks. Moreover, we find that different liquidity proxies measure different things, which has implications for future empirical analysis.

Abstract We use data from aggregate stock and dividend futures markets to quantify how investors’ expectations about economic growth evolved across horizons following the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and subsequent policy responses until July 2020. Dividend futures, which are claims to dividends on the aggregate stock market in a particular year, can be used to directly compute a lower bound on growth expectations across maturities or to estimate expected growth using a forecasting model. We show how the actual forecast and the bound evolve over time. As of July 20th, our forecast of annual growth in dividends points to a decline of 8% in both the United States and Japan and a 14% decline in the European Union compared to January 1. Our forecast of GDP growth points to a decline of 2% in the United States and Japan and 3% in the European Union. The lower bound on the change in expected dividends is -17% in the United States and Japan and -28% in the European Union at the 2-year horizon. News about U.S. monetary policy and the fiscal stimulus bill around March 24 boosted the stock market and long-term growth but did little to increase short-term growth expectations. Expected dividend growth has improved since April 1 in all geographies.

We provide a model in which a single psychological constraint, limited attention, explains both under- and overreaction to different earnings components. Investor neglect of earn-ings induces post-earnings announcement drift and the profit anomaly. Neglect of earnings components causes accrual and cash flow anomalies. The model offers empirical implica-tions relating the strength of earnings-related anomalies to the forecasting power of current earnings-related information for future earnings, investor attentiveness, and the volatilities of and correlation between accruals and cash flows. We also show that, owing to atten-tion costs, in equilibrium not all investors choose to attend to earnings or its components. (JEL G12, G14, M41, M43) Market reactions to earnings and earnings components present a striking puzzle. Stock prices on average underreact to earnings surprises (post-earnings an-nouncement drift), but overreact to the operating accruals component of earn-ings.1 Earnings- and accruals-related patterns of return predictability are often referred to as “anomalies, ” “under- ” and “overreaction, ” or reflecting investor “optimism, ” “pessimism, ” or “naı̈veté. ” Such labels offer little guidance as to

Abstract This paper examines whether a one-time, extensive, but temporary shock to cash supply can affect the adoption of digital payments. We exploit the 2016 demonetization episode in India, which overnight discontinued 86% of cash in circulation. Using novel administrative data from retail debit card transactions, we identify a 12% increase in digital payments in areas adversely affected by the cash shortage, which persisted well after the restoration of cash supply. Examining mechanisms, we find a limited role for social networks and stronger support for learning by doing. Further, information frictions hinder the immediate adoption of digital payments. (JEL E5, 023) Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Possible explanations are provided for two basic results in Kräussl's paper. First, rating effect may be stronger in emerging markets because they are less transparent. Transparency is interpreted in the context of Knightian uncertainty and institutional quality. Emerging markets have lower institutional quality ratings and present greater uncertainty than mature markets, therefore, they are more susceptible to rating agencies’ evaluations. Some empirical evidence on the correlations between institutional quality rankings and portfolio investment is presented. Second, sovereign credit downgrades generate a stronger market reaction than upgrades because decision makers value losses more than gains, as posited by cumulative prospect theory.

We show that the pattern of short-term negative serial covariances for stock returns over different return measurement intervals is consistent with the implications of inventory-based microstructure models. We develop different testable implications of these models and document supporting evidence. Our findings indicate that to a large extent the short-horizon return revearsals can be explained by dealer-inventory-related market microstructure effects. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: G14, G20.

The commitment value of financial contracts is limited by the ability of contracting parties to renegotiate them away, if it becomes mutually beneficial to do so. When debt contracts are used by oligopolistic firms to commit to aggressive output strategies as in Brander-Lewis, we show that renegotiation may undermine commitment under symmetric information, but not generally under asymmetric information. Lasting contracts that survive renegotiation are proposed. It is shown that there exist lasting debt contracts which preserve the commitment value and in which not all debt is renegotiated away.

Mr. Keynes and Mr. Marx S. S. Alexander S. S. Alexander Cambridge, Mass. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 7, Issue 2, February 1940, Pages 123–135, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967475 Published: 01 February 1940