We are the first to document the cross-sectional return seasonality effect in international government bonds. Using a variety of tests, we examine fixed-income securities from 22 countries for the years 1980–2018. The bonds with high (low) returns in the same-calendar month in the past continue to overperform (underperform) in the future. The effect is robust to many considerations, including controlling for established predictors of bond returns. Our results support the behavioural story of the anomaly, demonstrating its highest profitability in the periods of elevated investor sentiment and in the market segments of strong limits to arbitrage. Nonetheless, investment application of bond seasonality might be challenging due to high trading costs and the required short holding periods.

Motivated by existing evidence of the salience theory (ST) effect in the United States, we investigate its importance in 49 countries over the past three decades. Initial results suggest a negative relationship between the ST measure and future returns. The underperformance of low ST stocks is the strongest in countries with high idiosyncratic risk. However, the salience effect has three vital limitations. First, a substantial part of the anomaly can be attributed to the short-term return reversal. Second, it is priced primarily among microcaps. Third, the premium is realized predominantly following severe down markets and volatility spikes. Outside of microcaps and extreme market conditions, the salience effect does not exist.

We hypothesize that local economic discomfort influences investors’ risk aversion, leading to cross-sectional variation in risk premia in segmented equity markets. To test this assertion, we employ the misery index (MI)—which aggregates both unemployment and inflation rates—as a gauge of macroeconomic welfare. Using six decades of data from 69 markets, we demonstrate that economic discomfort reliably predicts cross-sectional stock returns. A quartile of countries with the highest MI outperforms those with the lowest by 0.74% per month. The effect prevails in markets where prices are set locally and gradually declines over time as markets become more integrated.

We perform a comprehensive investigation of the illiquidity premium in international stock markets. We examine several established liquidity measures in 45 countries for the years 1990–2020. Our findings provide convincing evidence that liquidity pricing depends strongly on firm size. Although the premium is globally present, it exists only among microcap stocks, which have negligible economic significance. Outside the microcap universe, virtually no liquidity effect can be observed.

Using new data from US and global markets, we revisit market risk premium predictability by equity anomalies. We apply a repertoire of machine-learning methods to forty-two countries to reach a simple conclusion: anomalies, as such, cannot predict aggregate market returns. Any ostensible evidence from the USA lacks external validity in two ways: it cannot be extended internationally and does not hold for alternative anomaly sets—regardless of the selection and design of factor strategies. The predictability—if any—originates from a handful of specific anomalies and depends heavily on seemingly minor methodological choices. Overall, our results challenge the view that anomalies as a group contain helpful information for forecasting market risk premia.

Using a news-based gauge of geopolitical risk, we study its role in asset pricing in global emerging markets. We find that changes in risk positively predict future stock returns. The countries with the highest increase in geopolitical uncertainty outperform their counterparts with the lowest change by up to 1% per month. The anomaly is not explained by other established asset pricing effects and remains robust to many considerations. We link the observed phenomenon with investor overreaction to geopolitical news driven by the availability bias.

Does factor momentum drive stock price momentum? We examine this relationship across 51 countries. Factor momentum proves strong across many markets and international portfolios, independent of typical return predictability drivers. However, its ability to capture stock momentum profits depends on methodological and dataset choices. Empirical factor momentum cannot entirely subsume stock or industry momentum globally. Conversely, price momentum often better explains its factor counterpart than vice versa. Notably, factor momentum based on principal components is more robust, capturing a major share of price momentum gains in developed and emerging markets. Our findings challenge the view that momentum merely times other factors rather than constituting a distinct anomaly.

We are the first to demonstrate the decline in the cross-sectional predictability of country and industry returns in recent years. We examine 53 anomalies in country and industry indices from 64 markets for the years 1973–2018. The profitability of the strategies has significantly decreased recently, driven particularly by the disappearance of value and reversal effects. The phenomenon is strongest in large developed markets. Neither changes in country- and industry-specific risks, nor investor learning from the academic literature can explain the effect. Our findings support the view that the fall in return predictability is caused by the overall improvement in market efficiency.