Recent evidence indicates irrational behavior among retail investors. They hold onto losses and sell winners in a manner consistent with the disposition effect. Market professionals often use the term “discipline” to indicate trading strategies that minimize potential behavioral influences. We investigate the nature of trading discipline and whether professional traders are able to avoid the costly irrational behaviors found in retail populations. The full-time traders in our sample hold onto losses significantly longer than gains, but we find no evidence of costs associated with this behavior. The successful floor futures traders in our sample exhibit trading behavior characterized as rational and disciplined. Moreover, measures of relative trading discipline have predictive power for subsequent trading success.

Banks are linked through the interbank deposit market, participations like syndicated loans and deposit interest rate risk. The similarity in exposures carries the potential for systemic breakdowns. This potential is either strong or weak, depending on whether the linkages remain or vanish asymptotically. It is shown that the linearity of the bank portfolios in the exposures, in combination with a condition on the tails of the marginal distributions of these exposures, determines whether the potential for systemic risk is weak or strong. We show that if the exposures have marginal normal distributions the potential for systemic risk is weak, while if e.g. the Student distributions apply the potential is strong.

The aim of this paper is to explain why cross-sectional estimated migration correlations displayed in the academic and professional literature can be either not consistent, or inefficient, and to discuss alternative approaches. The analysis relies on a model with stochastic migration in which the parameters of interest, that are migration correlations, are precisely defined. The impossibility of estimating consistently the migration correlations from cross-sectional data only is emphasized. We explain how to handle with individual rating histories, how to weight appropriately the cross-sectional estimators and how to estimate efficiently the joint migration probabilities at longer horizons.

This article uses unique data from the London Stock Exchange to examine how trader anonymity and market liquidity affect dealers' decisions about where to place interdealer trades. During our sample period, dealers could trade with each other in the direct, nonanonymous public market or use one of four anonymous brokered trading systems. Surprisingly, we find that adverse selection is less prevalent in the anonymous brokered markets. We show that this pattern can be explained by the way dealers "price" the adverse selection risk inherent in trading with other dealers. We also relate our findings to recent changes in dealer markets.

Prices of interest rate derivative securities depend crucially on the mean reversion parameters of the underlying diffusions. These parameters are subject to estimation bias when standard methods are used. The estimation bias can be substantial even in very large samples and much more serious than the discretization bias, and it translates into a bias in pricing bond options and other derivative securities that is important in practical work. This article proposes a very general and computationally inexpensive method of bias reduction that is based on Quenouille's (1956; Biometrika, 43, 353-360) jackknife. We show how the method can be applied directly to the options price itself as well as the coefficients in the models. We investigate its performance in a Monte Carlo study. Empirical applications to U.S. dollar swap rates highlight the differences between bond and option prices implied by the jackknife procedure and those implied by the standard approach. These differences are large and suggest that bias reduction in pricing options is important in practical applications.

This article studies the determinants of the success of industry consolidations using a unique sample of firms established at the time of their initial public offering: roll-up IPOs. In these transactions, small, private firms merge into a shell company, which goes public at the same time. These firms deliver poor stock returns; their operating performance mimics that of comparable firms but does not justify their high initial valuations. However, if the managers and owners of the firms included in the transaction remain involved in the business as shareholders and directors, operating and stock price performance improve, and future acquisitions are better received by the market. Higher ownership by the sponsor of the transaction leads to a reduction in performance, consistent with the view that the sponsor's compensation is excessive. These findings highlight the impact of corporate governance on performance.

We show that equity market liberalizations, on average, lead to a 1% increase in annual real economic growth. The effect is robust to alternative definitions of liberalization and does not reflect variation in the world business cycle. The effect also remains intact when an exogenous measure of growth opportunities is included in the regression. We find that capital account liberalization also plays a role in future economic growth, but, importantly, it does not subsume the contribution of equity market liberalizations. Other simultaneous reforms only partially account for the equity market liberalization effect. Finally, the largest growth response occurs in countries with high-quality institutions.

The average level and cross-sectional variability of fund alphas are estimated from a large sample of mutual funds. This information is incorporated, along with the usual regression estimate of alpha, in a (roughly) precision-weighted average measure of individual fund performance. Substantial “learning across funds” is documented, with significant effects on investment decisions. In a Bayesian framework, this form of learning is inconsistent with the assumption, made in the past literature, of prior independence across funds. Independence can be viewed as an extreme scenario in which the true cross-sectional distribution of alphas is presumed to be known a priori.

We investigate the relation between outside director compensation and the investment opportunities of firms. The sample of cases is drawn from the period 1996 to 2001. We find that elements of outside director compensation are significantly related to the investment opportunity set. Firms with more investment opportunities pay a higher level of compensation to their outside directors than firms with fewer investment opportunities. In addition to paying more total compensation, firms with greater investment opportunities compensate directors more heavily with stock-based forms of compensation than with cash. The result is consistent with the hypothesis that board compensation policy is designed to: (1) attract directors whose marginal productivity interacts with the investment opportunities of the firm to produce the maximal gain, and (2) mitigate agency problems. We also document a positive relation between total compensation of outside directors and firm size. A separate analysis indicates the results are economically significant. We conclude that firms pay more and emphasize incentive-based compensation to motivate outside directors to act in the interests of shareholders when the costs of monitoring are high.