Individual investors who hold common stocks directly pay a tremendous performance penalty for active trading. Of 66,465 households with accounts at a large discount broker during 1991 to 1996, those that trade most earn an annual return of 11.4 percent, while the market returns 17.9 percent. The average household earns an annual return of 16.4 percent, tilts its common stock investment toward high‐beta, small, value stocks, and turns over 75 percent of its portfolio annually. Overconfidence can explain high trading levels and the resulting poor performance of individual investors. Our central message is that trading is hazardous to your wealth.

Understanding Black-White Wage Differentials, 1960-1990 Author(s): James J. Heckman, Thomas M. Lyons, Petra E. Todd Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, (May, 2000), pp. 344 -349 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/117248 Accessed: 16/08/2008 00:56

This study shows that past trading volume provides an important link between “momentum” and “value” strategies. Specifically, we find that firms with high (low) past turnover ratios exhibit many glamour (value) characteristics, earn lower (higher) future returns, and have consistently more negative (positive) earnings surprises over the next eight quarters. Past trading volume also predicts both the magnitude and persistence of price momentum. Specifically, price momentum effects reverse over the next five years, and high (low) volume winners (losers) experience faster reversals. Collectively, our findings show that past volume helps to reconcile intermediate‐horizon “underreaction” and long‐horizon “overreaction” effects.

This paper documents some empirical facts about ex‐day abnormal returns to high dividend yield stocks that are potentially subject to corporate dividend capture. We find that average abnormal ex‐dividend day returns are uniformly negative in each year after the introduction of negotiated commission rates and that time variation in ex‐day returns during the negotiated commission rates era is consistent with corporate tax‐based dividend capture. Ex‐day returns are more negative when the tax advantage to corporate dividend capture is greatest and more positive when increases in transaction costs and risk reduce incentives to engage in corporate tax‐based dividend capture.

This paper examines long‐term block ownership by corporations and performance changes in firms with corporate block owners. We also examine potential reasons for corporate ownership including benefits in product market relationships, alleviation of financing constraints, and board monitoring by corporate owners. We find the largest significant increases in targets' stock prices, investment, and operating profitability when ownership is combined with alliances, joint ventures, and other product market relationships between purchasing and target firms, especially in industries with high research and development. Our findings are consistent with the conclusion that block ownership by corporations has significant benefits in product market relationships.

Employee involvement (EI) programs are the leading-edge form of personnel and labor relations in the United States. While many managers believe that these programs raise productivity and profits, the statistical evidence that EI improves the performance of firms is equivocal. The coefficients on measures of EI in production functions are usually positive but often insignificant or small (Commission on the Future of Worker–Management Relations, 1994 Ch. 2; Peter Cappelli and David Neumark, 1999) or contingent on other factors (Sandra E. Black and Lisa M. Lynch, 1997; Casey Ichniowski et al., 1997). A detailed case study of EI has further confirmed these small effects that were found in large data sets (Kleiner et al., 1999). If EI programs do not greatly affect productivity, why does business think so highly of them? In this study, we argue that the main beneficiaries of EI are workers and managers. We estimate the effects of EI on productivity using panel data on firms and the effects of EI on workers using a survey of employees and find that EI barely affects firm productivity but substantially improves worker well-being. We offer two explanations for this result.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer (JE) technologies are included in Windows at no separate charge. Versions 1 and 2 of IE functioned as add-on features in Windows 95. They were not tightly integrated into Windows and did not make applications programming interfaces available to other software. Over time, IE became increasingly integrated into Windows, sharing code with other Windows features and supplying processing services to other operatingsystem components and to software applications. In addition to distribution as part of Windows, Microsoft has routinely offered free IE distribution and upgrades through other channels. Microsoft has also compensated internet access providers (IAP's) and internet content providers (ICP' s) for their efforts to promote the use and distribution of IE. Despite IE's no-revenue track record and assurances of free availability in the future, Microsoft spends large sums developing and promoting IE. One interpretation of these (and other) facts holds that Microsoft unlawfully tied the browsing functionality of IE to Windows 95 and 98 for anticompetitive purposes. This view rests on the premise that a non-Microsoft web browser could evolve into a substitute for Windows or promote potential substitutes. Of course, the emergence of a substitute would erode the profitability of Windows. Hence, according to this view, Microsoft sought to preclude or forestall the emergence of alternative software platforms by tying its own web browser to Windows and by entering into promotional agreements that raise costs for rival web browsers. As an alternative to this view, we offer a pro-competitive perspective on Microsoft's behavior with respect to IE. Our perspective resonates with several other aspects of Microsoft's behavior as well. It also carries important implications for the connection between market structure and consumer welfare.

We characterize efficient self‐enforcing divisions of political or economic surplus between two parties that interact repeatedly. The party in power can decide the allocation, and the parties' political strength changes according to a Markov process. We find that the share of the party currently in power depends not only on its current strength but also on whether it had previously been even stronger since it last came to power. We find that the constitutional supermajority requirements that attempt to constrain the use of power can counterproductively create less compromise.

Many recent empirical investment studies have found that the investment of financially constrained firms responds strongly to cash flow. Paralleling these findings is the disappointing performance of the q theory of investment: even though marginal q should summarize the effects of all factors relevant to the investment decision, cash flow still matters. We examine whether this failure is due to error in measuring marginal q. Using measurement errorconsistent generalized method of moments estimators, we find that most of the stylized facts produced by investment-q cash flow regressions are artifacts of measurement error. Cash flow does not matter, even for financially constrained firms, and despite its simple structure, q theory has good explanatory power once purged of measurement error.

This paper provides evidence that managers strategically select the prior-period earnings amount that is used as a benchmark to evaluate current-period earnings in quarterly earnings announcements. Managers are more likely to separately announce a prior-period gain from the sale of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) than a loss. This strategy provides the lowest possible benchmark for evaluating current earnings, thereby allowing the manager to highlight the most favorable change in earnings. This strategic disclosure behavior is more likely to occur when it prevents a negative earnings surprise. The observed strategic disclosure decisions are consistent with a conjecture by managers that the nonrecurring nature of the prior-period gain/loss will be forgotten unless it is separately announced. Consistent with this conjecture, there is some evidence that equity investors, one potential target of strategic reporting, use the benchmark that managers provide in earnings announcements to evaluate current earnings, even when the components of this benchmark have different persistence. However, cross-sectional analyses provide no evidence that managers ex post exploit the equity mispricing that occurs between the earnings announcement date and the release of the financial statements.