This paper considers inference in a broad class of nonregular models. The models considered are nonregular in the sense that standard test statistics have asymptotic distributions that are discontinuous in some parameters. It is shown in Andrews and Guggenberger (2009a) that standard fixed critical value, subsampling, and m out of n bootstrap methods often have incorrect asymptotic size in such models. This paper introduces general methods of constructing tests and confidence intervals that have correct asymptotic size. In particular, we consider a hybrid subsampling/fixed-critical-value method and size-correction methods. The paper discusses two examples in detail. They are (i) confidence intervals in an autoregressive model with a root that may be close to unity and conditional heteroskedasticity of unknown form and (ii) tests and confidence intervals based on a post-conservative model selection estimator. Copyright 2009 The Econometric Society.

Many empirical questions in economics and other social sciences depend on causal effects of programs or policies. In the last two decades, much research has been done on the econometric and statistical analysis of such causal effects. This recent theoretical literature has built on, and combined features of, earlier work in both the statistics and econometrics literatures. It has by now reached a level of maturity that makes it an important tool in many areas of empirical research in economics, including labor economics, public finance, development economics, industrial organization, and other areas of empirical microeconomics. In this review, we discuss some of the recent developments. We focus primarily on practical issues for empirical researchers, as well as provide a historical overview of the area and give references to more technical research.

Contrary to past literature, ownership defined as “all officers and directors” of the target firm has no association with target returns. Rather, we find that inside (managerial) ownership has a positive relation with target returns, whereas active-outside (non-managing director) ownership has a negative relation with target returns. Using accounting-based versus market-based performance measures, we find that the relation between inside ownership and target returns is best explained by takeover anticipation. Using bidder and synergy returns we find that the relation between outside ownership and target returns is best explained by outsiders' willingness to share gains with the bidder. While the relations are more pronounced for non-tender deals, they also hold for tender offers when active-outside ownership is corporate rather than institutional.

ABSTRACT The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) mandates management evaluation and independent audits of internal control effectiveness. The mandate is costly to firms but may yield benefits through lower information risk that translates into lower cost of equity. We use unaudited pre–SOX 404 disclosures and SOX 404 audit opinions to assess how changes in internal control quality affect firm risk and cost of equity. After controlling for other risk factors, we find that firms with internal control deficiencies have significantly higher idiosyncratic risk, systematic risk, and cost of equity. Our change analyses document that auditor‐confirmed changes in internal control effectiveness (including remediation of previously disclosed internal control deficiencies) are followed by significant changes in the cost of equity that range from 50 to 150 basis points. Overall, our cross‐sectional and intertemporal change test results are consistent with internal control reports affecting investors' risk assessments and firms' cost of equity.

We study asset pricing in economies featuring both risk and uncertainty. In our empirical analysis, we measure risk via return volatility and uncertainty via the degree of disagreement of professional forecasters, attributing different weights to each forecaster. We empirically model the typical risk-return trade-off and augment these models with our measure of uncertainty. We find stronger empirical evidence for an uncertainty-return trade-off than for the traditional risk-return trade-off. Finally, we investigate the performance of a two-factor model with risk and uncertainty in the cross section.

Do bond investors demand credit quality or liquidity? The answer is both, but at different<br/>times and for different reasons. Using data on the Euro-area government bond market,<br/>which features a unique negative correlation between credit quality and liquidity across<br/>countries, we show that the bulk of sovereign yield spreads is explained by differences<br/>in credit quality, though liquidity plays a nontrivial role, especially for low credit risk<br/>countries and during times of heightened market uncertainty. In contrast, the destination of<br/>large flows into the bond market is determined almost exclusively by liquidity.We conclude<br/>that credit quality matters for bond valuation but that, in times of market stress, investors<br/>chase liquidity, not credit quality. (JEL G10, G12)

We examine whether institutional investors follow each other into and out of the same industries. Our empirical results reveal strong evidence of institutional industry herding. The cross-sectional correlation between the fraction of institutional traders buying an industry this quarter and the fraction buying last quarter, for example, averages 40%. Additional tests suggest that correlated signals primarily drive institutional industry herding. Our results also provide empirical support for “style investing” models.

Given the key role of liquidity in finance research, identifying high quality proxies based on daily (as opposed to intraday) data would permit liquidity to be studied over relatively long timeframes and across many countries. Using new measures and widely employed measures in the literature, we run horseraces of annual and monthly estimates of each measure against liquidity benchmarks. Our benchmarks are effective spread, realized spread, and price impact based on both Trade and Quote (TAQ) and Rule 605 data. We find that the new effective/realized spread measures win the majority of horseraces, while the Amihud [2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31–56] measure does well measuring price impact.

Flotation costs represent a significant loss of capital to firms and are positively related to information asymmetry between managers and outside investors. We measure a firm's information asymmetry by its accounting information quality based on two extensions of the Dechow and Dichev [2002. The quality of accruals and earnings: the role of accrual estimation errors. Accounting Review 77, 35–59] earnings accruals model, which is a more direct approach to assessing the information available to outside investors than the more commonly used proxies. Our main hypothesis is that poor accounting information quality raises uncertainty about a firm's financial condition for outside investors, though not necessarily for insiders. This accounting effect lowers demand for a firm's new equity, thereby raising underwriting costs and risk. Using a large sample of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), we show that poor accounting information quality is associated with higher flotation costs in terms of larger underwriting fees, larger negative SEO announcement effects, and a higher probability of SEO withdrawals. These results are robust to joint determination of offer size and flotation cost components and to adjustments for sample selection bias.