This paper examines the effects of macro-level disagreement on the cross-section of stock returns. Using forecast dispersion measures from the Survey of Professional Forecasters database as proxies for macro disagreement, I find that high macro beta stocks earn lower future returns relative to low macro beta stocks following high macro disagreement states. This negative relation between returns for macro factors and macro disagreement is robust and exists for a large set of macroeconomic factors, suggesting that high macro beta stocks are overvalued compared with low macro beta stocks due to their greater sensitivity to aggregate disagreement

We use COVID-19 and sell-side analysts as an experiment to study the effects of gender on labor productivity. We find that the forecast accuracy of female analysts declined more than that of male analysts, especially when schools were closed and among analysts who were more likely to have young children, were inexperienced, were busier, or lived in southern states of the US. Relative to male analysts, females also reduced their forecast timeliness and resorted to more heuristic forecasts but did not reduce coverage or updating frequency. Relative to pre pandemic, female analysts’ careers were more negatively affected than male analysts’. Overall, our results show that the pandemic impacted female analysts more than males through the quality of their forecasts but not the quantity.

We examine whether mutual fund managers overestimate carbon risk when they are exposed to local air pollution. We find that air pollution near fund managers induces them to underweight stocks of high-emission firms. The effects strengthen among environmentally conscious fund managers and among those likely to be surprised by air pollution—consistent with the idea that managers revise their beliefs about carbon risk following exposure to air pollution. A firm’s carbon-emissions disclosures and fund managers’ sophistication moderate these effects. Carbon-intensive stocks sold by fund managers who are exposed to local air pollution subsequently outperform stocks they buy, suggesting that such underweighting is costly to fund investors.

We examine the value and efficiency of analyst recommendations through the lens of capital market anomalies. We find that analysts do not fully use the information in anomaly signals when making recommendations. Analysts tend to give more favorable consensus recommendations to stocks classified as overvalued and, more important, these stocks subsequently tend to have particularly negative abnormal returns. Analysts whose recommendations are better aligned with anomaly signals are more skilled and elicit stronger recommendation announcement returns. Our findings suggest that analysts’ biased recommendations could be a source of market friction that impedes the efficient correction of mispricing.

This article examines the pricing of a firm’s carbon risk in the corporate bond market. Contrary to the “carbon risk premium” hypothesis, bonds of more carbon-intensive firms earn significantly lower returns. This effect cannot be explained by a comprehensive list of bond characteristics and exposure to known risk factors. Investigating sources of the low carbon alpha, we find the underperformance of bonds issued by carbon-intensive firms cannot be fully explained by divestment from institutional investors. Instead, our evidence is most consistent with investor underreaction to the predictability of carbon intensity for firm cash-flow news, creditworthiness, and environmental incidents.

We identify the broker each corporate insider trades through, and find that analysts and mutual fund managers affiliated with such “inside brokers” have a substantial information advantage on the insider’s firm. Affiliated analysts issue more accurate earnings forecasts, and affiliated mutual funds trade the insider’s stock more profitably than their peers, following insider trades through their brokerage. Notably, this advantage persists well after these insider trades are publicly disclosed. Our results challenge the prevalent perception that information asymmetry arising from insider trading is acute only before trade disclosure, and suggest that brokers facilitating these trades are in a position to exploit this asymmetry.

We investigate the link between exchange-traded funds and real investment. Cross-sectionally, higher ETF ownership is associated with an increased sensitivity of real investment to Tobin’s q and a heightened ability of stock returns to forecast future earnings. Inclusion of stocks in industry ETFs enhances investment-q sensitivity and implies greater incorporation of earnings information into prices prior to public releases. Greater nonmarket ETF ownership leads to increased (reduced) reliance of real investment on own (peers’) stock prices. Overall, the evidence is consistent with ETFs positively affecting real investment efficiency via greater flows of information.

This paper examines whether major corporate customers curb corporate carbon emissions along the supply chain. We show that suppliers with a more concentrated customer base have significantly lower carbon emissions. The results are robust to alternative measures of carbon emissions and customer concentration, alternative sample, alternative explanation, and various approaches to mitigate endogeneity concerns. The effect is more pronounced when major customers have made emission-reduction commitment, when they are exposed to greater climate regulatory shocks and risks, and when they become more concerned about regulatory scrutiny. Moreover, the curbing effect of major customers on supplier carbon emissions is stronger when customers have lower switching costs and stronger bargaining power over suppliers. We show that one way through which suppliers reduce emissions is by adopting green technologies. Our study highlights the role of major customers in facilitating the transition to a low-carbon economy through decarbonization along the supply chain.