[We investigate the trading of institutions immediately before the release of analysts' initial buy recommendations. We document abnormally high institutional trading volume and buying beginning five days before recommendations are publicly released. Abnormal buying is related to initiation characteristics that would require knowledge of the content of the report-such as the identity of the analyst and brokerage firm, and whether the recommendation is a strong buy. We confirm that institutions buying before the recommendation release earn abnormal profits. Our results are consistent with institutional traders receiving tips regarding the contents of forthcoming analysts' reports.]

[Using a proprietary dataset of institutional investors' equity transactions, we document that institutional trading desks can sustain relative performance over adjacent periods.We find that trading-desk skill is positively correlated with the performance of the institution's traded portfolio, suggesting that institutions that invest resources in developing execution abilities also invest in generating superior investment ideas. Although some brokers can deliver better executions consistently over time, our analysis suggests that trading-desk skill is not limited to a selection of better brokers. We conclude that the trade implementation process is economically important and can contribute to relative portfolio performance.]

We provide novel insight into how hedge funds value sell-side analysts’ work product using analysts who are selected to Alpha magazine's All-star analyst research team. Alpha’s rankings are constructed using a methodology identical to its sister publication, Institutional Investor, except that only ballots from hedge funds are tallied. When compared to other institutional investors, hedge funds prefer analysts that provide more frequent earnings forecast and recommendation revisions. Consistent with hedge funds placing a greater value on negative private information, hedge funds favor analysts that provide less optimistic recommendations, issue more recommendation downgrades, and provide lower price targets. We also find that hedge funds exhibit a preference for analysts who systematically change their recommendations in the same direction as prior-quarter hedge fund portfolio activity. This activity is most consistent with analysts using their recommendations to curry favor with hedge fund managers.

We examine voluntary disclosures around the exercise of CEO stock options. Previous research shows that managerial incentives depend on the intended disposition of the exercised options' underlying shares. When CEOs intend to sell the underlying shares of exercised options, they have an incentive to increase stock prices in the pre-exercise period. In contrast, when CEOs intend to hold the underlying shares, they have a tax incentive to decrease stock prices in the pre-exercise period. Consistent with these private incentives, we find a significant increase in the frequency and magnitude of good (bad) news announcements in the pre-exercise period when CEOs implement exercise-and-sell (exercise-and-hold) strategies. We provide some evidence that CEOs' propensities for opportunistic disclosures are positively related to the value of their exercised stock options. Lastly, we find that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) generally reduces, but does not eliminate, this type of managerial opportunism.

We exploit an exogenous shock to dark trading volume to identify the effect of dark trading on market quality. Following a 34% reduction in trading on dark venues, we find no evidence that the cost of trade (e.g., effective spreads, realized spreads, price impact, and quoted spreads) changes in a statistically or economically meaningful manner. While our findings stand in contrast to those of several prior studies, supplemental tests confirm that contradictory inferences cannot be attributed to either low power or different stock samples or time periods. Instead, we argue that identification is a key driver in conflicting results. Our research highlights the benefit of structured experimentation from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for understanding causal effects in capital markets.

We show that firms with Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) who personally benefit from options backdating are more likely to engage in other corporate misbehaviors, suggestive of an unethical corporate culture. These firms are more likely to commit financial fraud to overstate earnings. They acquire more private companies, which could perpetuate their frauds, and their acquisitions are met with lower market responses. These misbehaviors are concentrated in firms with externally hired suspect CEOs, consistent with outside CEOs having greater discretion to shape firm culture. The costs of these misbehaviors are reflected in larger stock price declines during a market correction and increased CEO replacement.

Using a large proprietary database of institutional trades, this paper examines the interim (intraquarter) trading skills of institutional investors. We find strong evidence that institutional investors earn significant abnormal returns on their trades within the trading quarter and that interim trading performance is persistent. After transactions costs, our estimates suggest that interim trading skills contribute between 20 and 26 basis points per year to the average fund's abnormal performance. Our findings also indicate that any trading skills documented by previous studies that use quarterly data are biased downwards because of their inability to account for interim trades.

We investigate the trading of institutions immediately before the release of analysts’ initial buy recommendations. We document abnormally high institutional trading volume and buying beginning five days before recommendations are publicly released. Abnormal buying is related to initiation characteristics that would require knowledge of the content of the report—such as the identity of the analyst and brokerage firm, and whether the recommendation is a strong buy. We confirm that institutions buying before the recommendation release earn abnormal profits. Our results are consistent with institutional traders receiving tips regarding the contents of forthcoming analysts’ reports.

We find direct evidence that institutions increase round-trip stock trades, increase average commissions per share, and pay unusually high commissions on some trades in order to send abnormally high commissions to the lead underwriters of profitable initial public offerings (IPOs). These excess commission payments are a particularly effective way for transient investors to receive lucrative IPO allocations. Our results suggest that the underwriter’s concern for their long-term client relationships limits the payment-for-IPO practice. We estimate that abnormal commission payments are large for the most profitable issues, and that an additional $1 excess commission payment to the lead underwriter results in $2.21 in investor profits from allocated shares.