This study shows that the propensity to gamble and investment decisions are correlated. At the aggregate level, individual investors prefer stocks with lottery features, and like lottery demand, the demand for lottery-type stocks increases during economic downturns. In the cross-section, socioeconomic factors that induce greater expenditure in lotteries are associated with greater investment in lottery-type stocks. Further, lottery investment levels are higher in regions with favorable lottery environments. Because lottery-type stocks underperform, gambling-related underperformance is greater among low-income investors who excessively overweight lottery-type stocks. These results indicate that state lotteries and lottery-type stocks attract very similar socioeconomic clienteles.

A global trend towards automated trading systems raises the important question of whether execution costs are, in fact, lower than on trading floors. This paper compares the trade execution costs of similar stocks in an automated trading structure (Paris Bourse) and a floor‐based trading structure (NYSE). Results indicate that execution costs are higher in Paris than in New York after controlling for differences in adverse selection, relative tick size, and economic attributes across samples. These results suggest that the present form of the automated trading system may not be able to fully replicate the benefits of human intermediation on a trading floor.

This paper investigates the susceptibility of futures markets to price manipulation in a two-period model with asymmetric information and "cash settlement" futures contracts. Without "physical delivery," strategies based on "corners" or "squeezes" are infeasible. However, uninformed investors still earn positive expected profits by establishing a futures position and then trading in the spot market to manipulate the spot price used to compute the cash settlement at delivery. The authors also show that as the number of manipulators grows, profits from manipulation fall to zero. However, even in the limit, manipulation still has a nontrivial impact on market liquidity. More broadly, they interpret manipulation as a form of endogenous "noise trading" which can arise in multiperiod security markets.