ABSTRACT Most previous research tests market efficiency using average abnormal trading profits on dynamic trading strategies, and typically rejects the joint hypothesis of market efficiency and an asset pricing model. In contrast, we adopt the perspective of a buy‐and‐hold investor and examine stock price levels. For such an investor, the price level is more relevant than the short‐horizon expected return, and betas of cash flow fundamentals are more important than high‐frequency stock return betas. Our cross‐sectional tests suggest that there exist specifications in which differences in relative price levels of individual stocks can be largely explained by their fundamental betas.

ABSTRACT We decompose the cross‐sectional variance of firms' book‐to‐market ratios using both a long U.S. panel and a shorter international panel. In contrast to typical aggregate time‐series results, transitory cross‐sectional variation in expected 15‐year stock returns causes only a relatively small fraction (20 to 25 percent) of the total cross‐sectional variance. The remaining dispersion can be explained by expected 15‐year profitability and persistence of valuation levels. Furthermore, this fraction appears stable across time and across types of stocks. We also show that the expected return on value‐minus‐growth strategies is atypically high at times when their spread in book‐to‐market ratios is wide.

Modigliani and Cohn hypothesize that the stock market suffers from money illusion, discounting real cash flows at nominal discount rates. While previous research has focused on the pricing of the aggregate stock market relative to Treasury bills, the money-illusion hypothesis also has implications for the pricing of risky stocks relative to safe stocks. Simultaneously examining the pricing of Treasury bills, safe stocks, and risky stocks allows us to distinguish money illusion from any change in the attitudes of investors toward risk. Our empirical results support the hypothesis that the stock market suffers from money illusion.

A large body of literature suggests that firm-level stock prices “underreact” to news about future cash flows; i.e., shocks to a firm's expected cash flows are positively correlated with shocks to expected returns on its stock. We examine the joint behavior of returns, cash-flow news, and trading between individuals and institutions. Institutions buy shares from (sell shares to) individuals in response to positive (negative) cash-flow news, thus exploiting the underreaction phenomenon. Institutions are not simply following price momentum strategies: When price goes up (down) in the absence of any cash-flow news, institutions sell shares to (buy shares from) individuals. Although institutions are trading in the “right” direction, institutions as a group outperform individuals by only 1.44% per annum before transaction and other costs, because they are extremely conservative in deviating from the value-weighted market index.

This text teaches important theoretical models to help your students organize their investments. Your students will learn how to time investment decisions, analyze financial statements, and achieve successful investment results through a global outlook.

ABSTRACT We develop a performance evaluation approach in which a fund manager's skill is judged by the extent to which the manager's investment decisions resemble the decisions of managers with distinguished performance records. The proposed performance measures use historical returns and holdings of many funds to evaluate the performance of a single fund. Simulations demonstrate that our measures are particularly useful in ranking managers. In an application that relies on such ranking, our measures reveal strong predictability in the returns of U.S. equity funds. Our measures provide information about future fund returns that is not contained in the standard measures.