Over-the-counter (OTC) stocks are far less liquid, disclose less information, and exhibit lower institutional holdings than do listed stocks. We exploit these different market conditions to test theories of cross-sectional return premiums. Compared with premiums in listed markets, the OTC illiquidity premium is several times higher, the size, value, and volatility premiums are similar, and the momentum premium is three times lower. The OTC illiquidity, size, value, and volatility premiums are largest among stocks held predominantly by retail investors and those not disclosing financial information. Theories of differences in investors' opinions and limits on short sales help explain these return premiums.

We examine the predictive power of the dividend yields for forecasting excess returns, cash flows, and interest rates. Dividend yields predict excess returns only at short horizons together with the short rate and do not have any long-horizon predictive power. At short horizons, the short rate strongly negatively predicts returns. These results are robust in international data and are not due to lack of power. A present value model that matches the data shows that discount rate and short rate movements play a large role in explaining the variation in dividend yields. Finally, we find that earnings yields significantly predict future cash flows.

Correlations between international equity market returns tend to increase in highly volatile bear markets, which has led some to doubt the benefits of international diversification. This article solves the dynamic portfolio choice problem of a U.S. investor faced with a time-varying investment opportunity set modeled using a regime-switching process which may be characterized by correlations and volatilities that increase in bad times. International diversification is still valuable with regime changes and currency hedging imparts further benefit. The costs of ignoring the regimes are small for all-equity portfolios but increase when a conditionally risk-free asset can be held.

Economists have long recognized that investors care differently about downside losses versus upside gains. Agents who place greater weight on downside risk demand additional compensation for holding stocks with high sensitivities to downside market movements. We show that the cross section of stock returns reflects a downside risk premium of approximately 6% per annum. Stocks that covary strongly with the market during market declines have high average returns. The reward for beasring downside risk is not simply compensation for regular market beta, nor is it explained by coskewness or liquidity risk, or by size, value, and momentum characteristics.