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.

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.

ABSTRACT Many believe that compensation, misaligned from shareholders’ value due to managerial entrenchment, caused financial firms to take risks before the financial crisis of 2008. We argue that, even in a classical principal‐agent setting without entrenchment and with exogenous firm risk, riskier firms may offer higher total pay as compensation for the extra risk in equity stakes borne by risk‐averse managers. Using long lags of stock price risk to capture exogenous firm risk, we confirm our conjecture and show that riskier firms are also more productive and more likely to be held by institutional investors, who are most able to influence compensation.