Evidence presented here indicates that the relationship between stock returns and unexpected inflation differs systematically across firms. The differences are shown to be consistent with cross-sectional variation in firms' nominal contracts (monetary claims and depreciation tax shields). The differences are also partially explained by proxies for underlying firm characteristics that could create interaction between unexpected inflation and operating profitability. Finally, much if not most of the differences appear to arise because unexpected inflation is correlated with changes in expected aggregate real activity, the effects of which tend to vary across firms according to their systematic risk.

Alan L. Gustman, Thomas L. Steinmeier, A Disaggregated, Structural Analysis of Retirement by Race, Difficulty of Work and Health, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug., 1986), pp. 509-513

This paper provides evidence that “illusory correlations”—a well-documented source of cognitive bias—lead some agents to be imperfectly rational noise traders. We focus on the head-and-shoulders chart pattern, considered by technical analysts to provide one of the most reliable trading signals. Our findings indicate that the pattern is associated with a substantial rise in trading volume even though it does not profitably predict directional movements. We further substantiate the connection between head-and-shoulders trading and imperfectly rational noise trading by showing that the pattern is associated with lower bid-ask spreads.

This paper takes advantage of the fact that some stocks trade both in domestic and international markets to characterize the degree of international financial integration. The paper argues that the cross-market premium (the ratio between the domestic and the international market price of cross-listed stocks) provides a valuable measure of international financial integration and the effectiveness of capital controls. Using autoregressive (AR) models to estimate convergence speeds and non-linear threshold autoregressive (TAR) models to identify non-arbitrage bands, the paper shows that price deviations across markets are rapidly arbitraged away and bands are narrow, particularly so for liquid stocks. The paper also shows that regulations on cross-border capital flows effectively segment domestic markets. As expected, the effects of both types of capital controls are asymmetric but in the opposite direction: controls on outflows induce positive premia, while controls on inflows generate negative premia. Both vary with the intensity of capital controls.

High-frequency traders (HFTs) mainly operate on public exchanges. Since the European regulatory changes in 2018 (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II), some HFTs began operating Systematic Internalizers (SIs), i.e., single-dealer platforms where clients trade against the dealer's inventory. Using Swedish equity market data, we show that higher HFT dealer-platform activity reduces displayed exchange liquidity: quoted spreads widen and depth falls. Effective spreads are largely unchanged for HFTs but increase for non-HFT traders. Price efficiency improves as return autocorrelations and excess variance ratios move closer to random-walk benchmarks. Evidence suggests HFT dealers' inventory management is the main channel behind these results.

We compare institutional execution costs across the major U.S. exchanges using a sample of institutional equity orders in firms that switch exchanges. Execution costs including commissions are essentially indistinguishable across these exchanges. We also find the fraction of trading volume from momentum traders is greater on the NYSE than either the Nasdaq or AMEX and that orders are more likely to be worked by an institution's trading desk on the NYSE than on the Nasdaq. These results suggest that institutions actively manage execution strategies, taking into account characteristics of the markets in which they trade.

We present a model in which flat (state-independent) capital requirements are undesirable because of shocks to bank capital. There is a rationale for countercyclical capital requirements that impose lower capital demands when aggregate bank capital is low. However, such capital requirements also have a cost as they increase systemic risk taking: by insulating banks against aggregate shocks (but not bank-specific ones), they create incentives to invest in correlated activities. As a result, the economy’s sensitivity to shocks increases and systemic crises can become more likely. Capital requirements that directly incentivize banks to become less correlated dominate countercyclical policies as they reduce both systemic risk-taking and cyclicality.

What is the impact of internationalization (firms raising capital and trading in international markets) on the liquidity of the remaining firms in domestic markets? To address this question, we assemble a panel database of nearly 2,900 firms from 45 emerging economies over the period 1989–2000, constructed from annual and daily data. First, we find evidence of migration. The domestic trading of firms that cross-list or issue depositary receipts in foreign public exchanges tends to decrease, while a significant proportion of their trading activity concentrates in international markets. Second, this migration is negatively related to the liquidity of the remaining firms in their home market through two separate channels. There are liquidity spillovers within markets: Aggregate domestic trading activity is positively associated with the liquidity of individual firms in the same market. Moreover, the proportion of trading abroad is negatively related to the liquidity of firms in the domestic market.

This paper examines how executive compensation influences the market value of the firm's assets. After controlling for endogeneity, we find that boards have set the incentive to incur risk (vega) to maximize shareholder value, but that incentives to increase returns (delta) do not maximize shareholder value. We also find that current levels of cash compensation do not maximize shareholder value. Finally, we consider the moneyness of stock options. We find that the level of at- and out-of-the money options maximize shareholder value, but the level of in-the money options do not maximize shareholder value.