We investigate why spreads on corporate bonds are so much larger than expected losses from default. Systematic factors make very little contribution to spreads, even if higher moments or downside effects are taken into account. Instead we find that sizes of spreads are strongly related to idiosyncratic-risk factors: not only to idiosyncratic equity volatility, but even more to idiosyncratic bond volatility and idiosyncratic bond value-at-risk. Idiosyncratic bond volatility helps to explain spreads because it reflects not just the distribution of firm value but is also a proxy for liquidity risk. Idiosyncratic bond value-at-risk adds to this by capturing the left-skewness of the firm-value distribution. We confirm our results both for the initial 1997–2004 sample period and also out of sample for 2005–2009, which includes the sub-prime crisis. Overall, credit spreads are large because they incorporate a large risk premium related to investors’ fears of extreme losses.

We compare the long run reaction to anticipated and surprise information announcements using stock splits. Although there is underreaction in both cases, anticipated splits are treated differently to those that are unforeseen. After anticipated splits, cumulative abnormal returns peak at one-and-a-half times the level observed after unanticipated splits although the time taken for the announcement to be absorbed into prices is the same. We explain the difference in underreaction by the degree to which split announcements are believed and hence invested in. The favorable signal conveyed in forecast splits is more credible owing to their better pre-split performance, resulting in a far more pronounced underreaction effect.

We use a new dataset to study how mutual fund flows depend on past performance across 28 countries. We show that there are marked differences in the flow-performance relationship across countries, suggesting that US findings concerning its shape do not apply universally. We find that mutual fund investors sell losers more and buy winners less in more developed countries. This is because investors in more developed countries are more sophisticated and face lower costs of participating in the mutual fund industry. Higher country-level convexity is positively associated with higher levels of risk taking by fund managers.