In this paper, I propose that technological innovations increase expected stock returns and premiums at the aggregate level. I use aggregate patent data and research and development (R&D) data to measure technological innovations in the U.S., and find that patent shocks and R&D shocks have positive and distinct predictive power for U.S. market returns and premiums. Similar patterns are also found in international data including other G7 countries, China, and India. These findings are consistent with previous empirical studies based on firm-level data, and call for further theoretical explanations.

This paper studies the asset pricing implications of industrial pollution. A long‐short portfolio constructed from firms with high versus low toxic emission intensity within an industry generates an average annual return of 4.42%, which remains significant after controlling for risk factors. This pollution premium cannot be explained by existing systematic risks, investor preferences, market sentiment, political connections, or corporate governance. We propose and model a new systematic risk related to environmental policy uncertainty. We use the growth in environmental litigation penalties to measure regime change risk and find that it helps price the cross section of emission portfolios' returns.

We examine how financial market development affects technological innovation. Using a large data set that includes 32 developed and emerging countries and a fixed effects identification strategy, we identify economic mechanisms through which the development of equity markets and credit markets affects technological innovation. We show that industries that are more dependent on external finance and that are more high-tech intensive exhibit a disproportionally higher innovation level in countries with better developed equity markets. However, the development of credit markets appears to discourage innovation in industries with these characteristics. Our paper provides new insights into the real effects of financial market development on the economy.

This study examines how options trading influences brand development strategies by encouraging managerial risk-taking. We find that firms with higher levels of options trading tend to introduce more new trademarks, which exhibit lower citation rates from subsequent trademarks. These firms favor brand creation over extension, leading to increased brand riskiness, as evidenced by greater trademark diversity. Potential channels for these effects include increased institutional ownership by transient investors and enhanced managerial hedging opportunities. These effects are more pronounced in firms with weaker governance, managers with higher pay-risk sensitivity, younger managerial teams, and intense competition. Additionally, we observe a negative relation between unrelated brand diversification, driven by options trading, and firm value. Our findings support the notion that active options markets incentivize managers to pursue riskier brand strategies.

We examine the consequences of real earnings management from an innovation perspective and investigate the patent output of firms likely to be managing earnings through altering their R&D expenditures. We find that R&D cuts related to earnings management lead to fewer patents, less influential patent output, and lower innovative efficiency compared to other R&D cuts. Our results thus suggest that real earnings management may obstruct firms’ technological progress and highlight the potential costs of managerial manipulation of R&D expenditures to alter reported earnings.

We compare innovation strategies of public and private firms based on a large sample over the period 1997–2008. We find that public firms’ patents rely more on existing knowledge, are more exploitative, and are less likely in new technology classes, while private firms’ patents are broader in scope and more exploratory. We investigate whether these strategies are due to differences in firm information environments, CEO risk preferences, firm life cycles, corporate acquisition policies, or investment horizons between these two groups of firms. Our evidence suggests that the shorter investment horizon associated with public equity markets is a key explanatory factor.

We propose that corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment serves as an intangible investment in stakeholder relationships to guard against external disruptions to firms' operations and tangible assets. Using a difference-in-differences setting and a database of factory locations, we show that manufacturing firms with higher CSR ratings are much less affected by major natural disasters in terms of operating performance. We then propose two mechanisms through which CSR engagement shields manufacturing firms against external disruptions: employee motivation and customer loyalty. Empirical evidence suggests that CSR helps manufacturing firms survive major natural disasters by motivating employees, which leads to higher post-disaster productivity, and keeping customers, which leads to more stable post-disaster sales.

We find that innovative efficiency (IE), patents or citations scaled by research and development expenditures, is a strong positive predictor of future returns after controlling for firm characteristics and risk. The IE-return relation is associated with the loading on a mispricing factor, and the high Sharpe ratio of the Efficient Minus Inefficient (EMI) portfolio suggests that mispricing plays an important role. Further tests based upon attention and uncertainty proxies suggest that limited attention contributes to the effect. The high weight of the EMI portfolio return in the tangency portfolio suggests that IE captures incremental pricing effects relative to well-known factors.

We propose that innovative originality is a valuable organizational resource and that owing to limited investor attention and skepticism of complexity, greater innovative originality may be undervalued. We find that firms' innovative originality strongly predicts higher, more persistent, and less volatile profitability and higher abnormal stock returns, findings that are robust to extensive controls. The return predictive power of innovative originality is stronger for firms with higher valuation uncertainty, lower investor attention, and greater sensitivity of future profitability to innovative originality. This evidence suggests that innovative originality acts as a "competitive moat" and is undervalued by the market.

We introduce a test to assess mutual funds’ “conditional” performance that is based on updated information and corrects data snooping bias. Our method, named the functional false discovery rate “plus” ( $ fFDR^+ $ ), incorporates fund characteristics in estimating fund performance free of data snooping bias. Simulations suggest that the $ fFDR^+ $ controls well the ratio of false discoveries and gains considerable power over prior methods that do not account for extra information. Portfolios of funds selected by the $ fFDR^+ $ outperform other tests not accounting for information updating, highlighting the importance of evaluating mutual funds from a conditional perspective.