I use uniquely comprehensive data on financial news events to test four predictions from an asymmetric information model of a firm's stock price. Certain investors trade on information before it becomes public; then, public news levels the playing field for other investors, increasing their willingness to accommodate a persistent liquidity shock. Empirically, I measure public information using firms' stock returns on news days in the Dow Jones archive. I find four patterns in postnews returns and trading volume that are consistent with the asymmetric information model's predictions. Some evidence is, moreover, inconsistent with alternative theories in which traders interpret news differently for rational or behavioral reasons.

[I use uniquely comprehensive data on financial news events to test four predictions from an asymmetric information model of a firm's stock price. Certain investors trade on information before it becomes public; then, public news levels the playing field for other investors, increasing their willingness to accommodate a persistent liquidity shock. Empirically, I measure public information using firms' stock returns on news days in the Dow Jones archive. I find four patterns in postnews returns and trading volume that are consistent with the asymmetric information model's predictions. Some evidence is, moreover, inconsistent with alternative theories in which traders interpret news differently for rational or behavioral reasons.]

[Panel data on corporate ownership in thirty-four countries between 1995 and 2006 reveal that newly public firms have concentrated ownership regardless of the level of investor protection. After listing, firms in countries with strong investor protection are more likely to experience decreases in ownership concentration; these decreases occur in response to growth opportunities, and they are associated with new share issuance. We conclude that ownership concentration falls after listing in countries with strong investor protection, because firms in these countries continue to raise capital and grow, diluting blockholders as a consequence.]

[We examine how residents of the United States allocate their stock portfolios internationally. We find that a large U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) position in a destination country in 1990 is associated with a relatively large stock portfolio position in that country in the 2001-2006 period. Moreover, a change in the U.S. FDI position from 1980 to 1990 helps predict the change in the U.S. Foreign Portfolio Investment position from 1994 to 2006. These results are rationalized by Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp's (2009) equilibrium model of learning and portfolio choice under an information processing constraint. FDI establishes marginal differences in the endowments of information about different countries, which later translate into differences in stock portfolio holdings. We control for cross-country differences in capital controls, proximity along different dimensions, corporate governance, and economic and capital market development. Our results also hold for the G6 countries collectively.]

Panel data on corporate ownership in thirty-four countries between 1995 and 2006 reveal that newly public firms have concentrated ownership regardless of the level of investor protection. After listing, firms in countries with strong investor protection are more likely to experience decreases in ownership concentration; these decreases occur in response to growth opportunities, and they are associated with new share issuance. We conclude that ownership concentration falls after listing in countries with strong investor protection, because firms in these countries continue to raise capital and grow, diluting blockholders as a consequence.

[We evaluate why individuals invest in high-fee index funds. In our experiments, subjects each allocate $ 10,000 across four S&P 500 index funds and are rewarded for their portfolio's subsequent return. Subjects overwhelmingly fail to minimize fees. We reject the hypothesis that subjects buy high-fee index funds because of bundled nonportfolio services. Search costs for fees matter, but even when we eliminate these costs, fees are not minimized.Instead, subjects place high weight on annualized returns since inception. Fees paid decrease with financial literacy. Interestingly, subjects who choose high-fee funds sense they are making a mistake.]

[We provide new evidence linking board characteristics and performance. Using manually collected governance data from the mutual fund industry, we find an inverse relation between board size and fund performance. We also find evidence that organizational form plays an important role in determining operational performance. Overall, the results are consistent with the notion that there may not be a single optimal board structure that is applicable to all funds, that attempts to regulate board attributes should be considered with caution, and that sponsor-level factors are important board structure considerations.]

We examine how residents of the United States allocate their stock portfolios internationally. We find that a large U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) position in a destination country in 1990 is associated with a relatively large stock portfolio position in that country in the 2001–2006 period. Moreover, a change in the U.S. FDI position from 1980 to 1990 helps predict the change in the U.S. Foreign Portfolio Investment position from 1994 to 2006. These results are rationalized by Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp’s (2009) equilibrium model of learning and portfolio choice under an information processing constraint. FDI establishes marginal differences in the endowments of information about different countries, which later translate into differences in stock portfolio holdings. We control for cross-country differences in capital controls, proximity along different dimensions, corporate governance, and economic and capital market development. Our results also hold for the G6 countries collectively.

We conduct an experiment to evaluate why individuals invest in high-fee index funds. In our experiments, subjects allocate $10,000 across four S&P 500 index funds and are rewarded for their portfolio's subsequent return. Subjects overwhelmingly fail to minimize fees. We can reject the hypothesis that subjects buy high-fee index funds because of bundled non-portfolio services. Search costs for fees matter, but even when we eliminate these costs, fees are not minimized. Instead, subjects place high weight on annualized returns since inception. Fees paid decrease with financial literacy. Interestingly, subjects who choose high-fee funds sense they are making a mistake.

We provide new evidence linking board characteristics and performance. We employ a sample of index funds to isolate the operational component of performance, thereby minimizing investment policy effects in our performance measures. Using manually collected governance data from the mutual fund industry covering the period from 1998 to 2007, we find an inverse relation between board size and fund performance. We also find evidence supporting our hypotheses that organizational form (whether the fund sponsor is publicly or privately held) plays an important role in determining operational performance. Specifically, we find that board size, the presence of fund sponsor officers, and boards comprised of all independent directors are related to operational performance when the sponsor is publicly held. For privately held firms, board structure is insignificantly related to performance. Overall, the results are consistent with the notion that there may not be a single optimal board structure that is applicable to all funds, attempts to regulate board attributes should be considered with caution, and sponsor level factors are important board structure considerations. (JLE G34, G32, G20)