This study shows that correlated trading by gambling-motivated investors generates excess return comovement among stocks with lottery features. Lottery-like stocks comove strongly with one another, and this return comovement is strongest among lottery stocks located in regions where investors exhibit stronger gambling propensity. Looking directly at investor trades, we find that investors with a greater propensity to gamble trade lottery-like stocks more actively and that those trades are more strongly correlated. Finally, we demonstrate that time variation in general gambling enthusiasm and income shocks from fluctuating economic conditions induce a systematic component in investors’ demand for lottery-like stocks.

Alfred Cowles' test of the Dow Theory apparently provides strong evidence against the ability of Wall Street's most famous chartist to forecast the stock market. Cowles (1934) analyzes editorials published by the chief exponent of the Dow Theory, William Peter Hamilton. We review Cowles' evidence and find that it supports the contrary conclusion. Hamilton's timing strategies actually yield high Sharpe ratios and positive alphas for the period 1902 to 1929. Neural net modeling to replicate Hamilton's market calls provides interesting insight into the Dow Theory and allows us to examine the properties of the theory itself out of sample.

Using hand-collected data on the cultural origins of S&P 500 CEOs and their spouses, we examine whether differences in risk attitudes within marriages influence corporate risk-taking behavior. We find that CEOs with more risk averse spouses adopt relatively safer corporate policies. The effect is stronger if the CEO comes from a more collectivist culture , has been married more recently, or shares more responsibilities with their spouse. Together, these findings suggest that the cultural composition of CEOs’ households and their spouses’ risk preference affect corporate risk-taking behavior.

Although macroeconomic news has a major impact on corporate earnings, anecdotal evidence suggests that financial analyst research is inefficient with respect to such news. Examining analysts' earnings research, we find that they underreact to negative macroeconomic news. Analysts are not all equal, though, as analysts employed at the same firm as an active macroeconomist underreact much less. We find that the benefit of analyst access to an economist is concentrated in firms that are high in cyclicality relative to their industry, high in cyclicality in general, and that are smaller in size. In addition, analysts who are exposed to more accurate or award-winning in-house macroeconomists benefit more. Investors appear to recognize the advantage of access to macroeconomists, reacting more strongly to these analysts' forecast revisions. Overall, our results suggest that the presence of an active in-house macroeconomist improves the efficiency and credibility of analyst research.

We investigate the dynamics of heterogeneous beliefs and link them to the volatility pattern throughout the seasoned equity offering (SEO) event window. In sync with a reduction in information asymmetry related to management information releases around the SEO event, belief heterogeneity declines. Moreover, heterogeneity in beliefs, proxied by either analyst- or institutional-trade-based measures, is a robust and salient determinant of SEO firm volatility, which provides an explanation for the volatility timing “puzzle” identified in the SEO market. Furthermore, the relation between heterogeneous beliefs and return volatility weakens as short sale constraints tighten, suggesting a potential causal link.

We show that hedge fund managers who more actively and astutely adjust the political sensitivity of their portfolios, in line with the dynamic U.S. political landscape, improve their investment performance. Funds that tilt their portfolios toward market segments expected to perform better during the new political regime, specifically around U.S. Presidential elections, generate significantly higher alphas. Further, hedge fund families with greater responsiveness to political changes exhibit persistently superior performance and are more likely to survive. Hedge fund investors reward more responsive fund managers with greater inflows.

We propose a theoretical measure of income hedging demand and show that it affects asset prices. We focus on the value factor and first demonstrate that our demand estimates are correlated with the actual demands of retail and mutual fund investors. We then show that the aggregate high‐minus‐low (HML) demand predicts HML returns. Exploiting the state‐level variation in income risk, we demonstrate that state‐level hedging demands predict state‐level HML returns. A long‐short portfolio that exploits this hedging‐induced predictability earns an annualized risk‐adjusted return of 6%.