Abstract In Los Angeles, all-cash home purchases quintupled during the last decade. Compared with an else-equal mortgage offer, a cash offer is associated with 29 percent shorter time-to-close and a 2–3.9 percent price discount, indicating a substantial amount of financing risk—the risk to a seller that a transaction may not close on time and may fail to occur again because a mortgage contingency fails. The estimated cash discount aligns well with a canonical model calibrated to the sample market. Our findings reveal that closing risk alone is insufficient to explain the cash discount. Rather, it turns on the possibility that a property back on the market may fail to sell, requiring a substantial risk compensation. The estimated cash discount is smaller during booms and in larger markets, highlighting the inseparability of financial frictions in the mortgage market and search frictions in the housing market.

We provide a model in which a single psychological constraint, limited attention, explains both under- and overreaction to different earnings components. Investor neglect of earn-ings induces post-earnings announcement drift and the profit anomaly. Neglect of earnings components causes accrual and cash flow anomalies. The model offers empirical implica-tions relating the strength of earnings-related anomalies to the forecasting power of current earnings-related information for future earnings, investor attentiveness, and the volatilities of and correlation between accruals and cash flows. We also show that, owing to atten-tion costs, in equilibrium not all investors choose to attend to earnings or its components. (JEL G12, G14, M41, M43) Market reactions to earnings and earnings components present a striking puzzle. Stock prices on average underreact to earnings surprises (post-earnings an-nouncement drift), but overreact to the operating accruals component of earn-ings.1 Earnings- and accruals-related patterns of return predictability are often referred to as “anomalies, ” “under- ” and “overreaction, ” or reflecting investor “optimism, ” “pessimism, ” or “naı̈veté. ” Such labels offer little guidance as to

The Russell 1000 and 2000 stock indexes comprise the first 1000 and next 2000 largest firms ranked by market capitalization. Small changes in the capitalizations of firms ranked near 1000 move them between these indexes. Because the indexes are value-weighted, more money tracks the largest stocks in the Russell 2000 than the smallest in the Russell 1000. Using this discontinuity, we find that additions to the Russell 2000 result in price increases and deletions result in price declines. We then identify time trends in indexing effects and the types of funds that provide liquidity to indexers.

[We test whether and how equity overvaluation affects corporate financing decisions using an ex ante misvaluation measure that filters firm scale and growth prospects from market price. We find that equity issuance and total financing increase with equity overvaluation, but only among overvalued stocks, and that equity issuance is more sensitive than debt issuance to misvaluation. Consistent with managers catering to maintain overvaluation and with investment-scale economy effects, the sensitivity of equity issuance and total financing to misvaluation is stronger among firms with potential growth opportunities (low book-to-market, high R&D, or small size) and high share turnover.]

This paper analyzes the joint impact of the interest rate volatility and debt on firm investment. We derive an investment model taking account of the risk attitude of the owners of the firm. Using a panel of Dutch listed firms in the period of 1984–1995, we find that the cross-effect of the interest rate volatility and debt on investment is positive. This effect is more important for highly indebted firms than for less-indebted firms. The results are robust to different measures for the interest rate volatility. We interpret this finding by the tradeoff between the effect of the interest burden and the effect of debt revaluation.

This paper examines the market pricing of Jones (1991) modelestimated abnormal accruals (often termed “discretionary accruals” in the prior literature) to test whether stock prices rationally reflect the one-year-ahead earnings implications of these accruals. Using the Mishkin (1983) and hedge-portfolio test methods Sloan (1996) employs, I find that the market overestimates the persistence, or one-year-ahead earnings implications, of abnormal accruals, and consequently overprices these accruals. These results extend Subramanyam (1996) by demonstrating that the market not only prices, but also overprices abnormal accruals. They also suggest that the overpricing of total accruals that Sloan (1996) documents is due largely to abnormal accruals. The results are robust to five alternative measures of abnormal accruals, and still hold when I estimate abnormal accruals after controlling for major unusual but largely nondiscretionary accruals. The latter finding is consistent with the notion that the market overprices the portion of abnormal accruals stemming from managerial discretion.

[An auditor's reputation lends credibility to the earnings report that he audits. An unresolved issue is whether auditor size is correlated with auditor quality, where a high-quality auditor is defined as one who brings about more credible earnings reports. According to basic intuition and a modified Holthausen-Verrecchia (1988) model, investors' response to an earnings surprise will depend on the perceived credibility of the earnings report. In this study, we examine whether the earnings response coefficient (ERC) differs between Big Eight (B8) and non-Big Eight (NB8) audited firms. This provides a test of the joint hypotheses that auditor size is a proxy for auditor credibility and of the modified H-V model. Consistent with the joint hypotheses, we find that the ERCs of Big Eight clients are statistically significantly higher than for non-Big Eight clients. The result obtains in both a matched sample of firms paired according to industry membership, and a switch sample of firms grouped according to shifts from and to B8 and NB8 auditors. Furthermore, the result is robust with respect to the inclusion of other explanatory factors for ERC that have been suggested by previous studies: growth and persistence, risk, firm size, and predisclosure information environment.]