The leverage effect refers to the generally negative correlation between an asset return and its changes of volatility. A natural estimate consists in using the empirical correlation between the daily returns and the changes of daily volatility estimated from high frequency data. The puzzle lies in the fact that such an intuitively natural estimate yields nearly zero correlation for most assets tested, despite the many economic reasons for expecting the estimated correlation to be negative. To better understand the sources of the puzzle, we analyze the different asymptotic biases that are involved in high frequency estimation of the leverage effect, including biases due to discretization errors, to smoothing errors in estimating spot volatilities, to estimation error, and to market microstructure noise. This decomposition enables us to propose novel bias correction methods for estimating the leverage effect.

= 0 against sparse alternatives where the null hypothesis is violated only by a couple of components. Existing tests based on quadratic forms such as the Wald statistic often suffer from low powers due to the accumulation of errors in estimating high-dimensional parameters. More powerful tests for sparse alternatives such as thresholding and extreme-value tests, on the other hand, require either stringent conditions or bootstrap to derive the null distribution and often suffer from size distortions due to the slow convergence. Based on a screening technique, we introduce a "power enhancement component", which is zero under the null hypothesis with high probability, but diverges quickly under sparse alternatives. The proposed test statistic combines the power enhancement component with an asymptotically pivotal statistic, and strengthens the power under sparse alternatives. The null distribution does not require stringent regularity conditions, and is completely determined by that of the pivotal statistic. As specific applications, the proposed methods are applied to testing the factor pricing models and validating the cross-sectional independence in panel data models.

Event studies of market efficiency measure earnings surprises using the consensus error ( CE ), given as actual earnings minus the average professional forecast. If a subset of forecasts can be biased, the ideal but difficult to estimate parameter‐dependent alternative to CE is a nonlinear filter of individual errors that adjusts for bias. We show that CE is a poor parameter‐free approximation of this ideal measure. The fraction of misses on the same side ( FOM ), which discards the magnitude of misses, offers a far better approximation. FOM performs particularly well against CE in predicting the returns of U.S. stocks, where bias is potentially large.