Brokerage analysts frequently comment on and sometimes recommend companies that their firms have recently taken public. We show that stocks that underwriter analysts recommend perform more poorly than “buy” recommendations by unaffiliated brokers prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to the recommendation date. We conclude that the recommendations by underwriter analysts show significant evidence of bias. We show also that the market does not recognize the full extent of this bias. The results suggest a potential conflict of interest inherent in the different functions that investment bankers perform.

We test a theory of the interaction between investors’ heterogeneity, risk, transaction costs, and trading volume. We take advantage of the specific nature of trading motives around the distribution of cash dividends, namely the costly trading of tax shields. Consistent with the theory, we show that when trades occur because of differential valuation of cash flows, an increase in risk or transaction costs reduces volume. We also show that the nonsystematic risk plays a significant role in determining the volume of trade. Finally, we demonstrate that trading volume is positively related to the degree of heterogeneity and the incentives of the various groups to engage in trading.

We test the empirical implications of several models of IPO underpricing. Consistent with the winner’s-curse hypothesis, we show that in markets where investors know a priori that they do not have to compete with informed investors, IPOs are not underpriced. We also show that IPOs underwritten by reputable investment banks experience significantly less underpricing and perform significantly better in the long run. We do not find empirical support for the signaling models that try to explain why firms underprice. In fact, we find that (1) firms that underprice more return to the reissue market less frequently, and for lesser amounts, than firms that underprice less, and (2) firms that underprice less experience higher earnings and pay higher dividends, contrary to the models’ predictions.

ABSTRACT We examine the relation between institutional holdings and payout policy in U.S. public firms. We find that payout policy affects institutional holdings. Institutions avoid firms that do not pay dividends. However, among dividend‐paying firms they prefer firms that pay fewer dividends. Our evidence indicates that institutions prefer firms that repurchase shares, and regular repurchasers over nonregular repurchasers. Higher institutional holdings or a concentration of holdings do not cause firms to increase their dividends, their repurchases, or their total payout. Our results do not support models that predict that high dividends attract institutional clientele, or models that predict that institutions cause firms to increase payout.

ABSTRACT Contrary to the implications of many payout theories, we find that announcements of open‐market share repurchase programs are not followed by an increase in operating performance. However, we find that repurchasing firms experience a significant reduction in systematic risk and cost of capital relative to non‐repurchasing firms. Further, consistent with the free cash‐flow hypothesis, we find that the market reaction to share repurchase announcements is more positive among those firms that are more likely to overinvest. Finally, we find evidence to indicate that investors underreact to repurchase announcements because they initially underestimate the decline in cost of capital.

ABSTRACT We show that repurchases have not only became an important form of payout for U.S. corporations, but also that firms finance their share repurchases with funds that otherwise would have been used to increase dividends. We find that young firms have a higher propensity to pay cash through repurchases than they did in the past and that repurchases have become the preferred form of initiating a cash payout. Although large, established firms have generally not cut their dividends, they also show a higher propensity to pay out cash through repurchases. These findings indicate that firms have gradually substituted repurchases for dividends. Our results also suggest that before 1983, regulatory constraints inhibited firms from aggressively repurchasing shares.

This paper issues a warning that compounding daily returns of the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) equal-weighted index can lead to surprisingly large biases. The differences between the monthly returns compounded from the daily tapes and the monthly CRSP equal-weighted indices is almost 0.43 percent per month, or 6 percent per year. This difference amounts to one-third of the average monthly return, and is large enough to reverse the conclusions of a paper using the daily tape to compute the return on the benchmark portfolio. We also investigate the sources of these biases and suggest several alternative strategies to avoid them.

This article investigates market reactions to initiations and omissions of cash dividend payments. Consistent with prior literature, the authors find that the magnitude of short-run price reactions to omissions are greater than for initiations. In the year following the announcements, prices continue to drift in the same direction, though the drift following omissions is stronger and more robust. This postdividend initiation/omission price drift is distinct from and more pronounced than that following earnings surprises. A trading rule employing both samples earns positive returns in twenty-two out of twenty-five years. The authors find little evidence for clientele shifts in either sample.

Empirical studies of the modern theories of bond pricing typically choose proxies for the state variables in a rather arbitrary fashion. This paper empirically analyzes the question of the optimal spot rates to use as state variables. The authors' findings indicate that the four-year spot rate serves as the best proxy in the one-state-variable model. In the case of the two-state-variables model, the six-year rate and eight-month rate are identified as best. Tests of the out-of-sample prediction ability indicate that their model is superior to F. R. Macaulay's duration model and alternative proxies for state variables.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the optimal individual behavior in acquiring information and to determine the amount of information incorporated in a stock at equilibrium, in the presence of a cost schedule in acquiring information. Our paper shows that at equilibrium the cost to acquire information that is not already incorporated in the price depends only on the representative investor's risk preferences. It follows that the marginal information costs are the same across all stocks at equilibrium even though the stock's information costs schedules may differ. This suggests that the prices of small stocks may not incorporate all publicly available information. This paper also provides empirical evidence that newspapers' publication of publicly available information can affect the stock prices.