It is a commonly held view that gold protects investors’ wealth in the event of negative economic conditions. In this study, we test whether other metals offer similar or better investment opportunities in periods of market turmoil. Using a sample of 13 sovereign bonds, we show that other precious metals, palladium in particular, offer investors greater compensation for their bond market losses than gold. We also find that industrial metals, especially copper, tend to outperform gold and other precious metals as hedging vehicles and safe haven assets against losses in sovereign bonds. However, the outcome of the hedge and safe haven properties is not always consistent across the different bonds. Finally, our analysis suggests that copper is the best performing metal in the period immediately after negative bond price shocks.

This study uses the quality of coverage decisions as a new metric to evaluate the performance of star and non-star analysts. We find that the coverage decisions of star analysts are better predictors of returns than those of non-star analysts. The return predictability of star analysts’ coverage decisions is stronger for informationally opaque stocks. We further exploit the staggered short selling deregulations, Google’s withdrawal, and the anti-corruption campaign as three quasi-natural experiments that create plausibly exogenous variations in the quality of information environment. These experiments show that the predictive power of star analysts’ coverage decisions strengthens (weakens) following a sharp deterioration (improvement) in firms’ information environment, consistent with the notion that star analysts possess superior ability to identify mispriced stocks. Overall, star analysts make better coverage decisions and play a superior role as information intermediaries, especially in poor information environment.

We offer new evidence on the risk versus mispricing explanations for the R&D anomaly. Return covariance with a characteristic-based factor captures the cross-sectional return variation on R&D portfolios not explained by asset pricing models. This is consistent with both covariance risk and mispricing. Under the framework of the ICAPM, we find little economic justification that an R&D factor is a proxy for innovations to a state variable. The characteristic subsumes the factor loading in direct tests, providing support to the mispricing hypothesis. Investigating the mispricing explanation further, we reject the assertion that the R&D anomaly arises from the correction of stocks mispriced by investor sentiment. A natural experiment exploiting the pilot program under Regulation SHO shows no evidence that the anomaly persists due to limits to arbitrage in the form of short sale constraints.

Using data from 20 OECD countries, we find that firms with greater organization capital have significantly higher stock returns and that this represents an international phenomenon. We also find new evidence that the positive association between organization capital and stock returns increases with labor market flexibility. This finding is consistent with greater labor mobility and competition in flexible labor markets rendering organization capital investment riskier from the shareholders’ perspective.