We compare two competing theories of financial anomalies: "behavioral" theories built on investor irrationality, and "rational structural uncertainty" theories built on incomplete information about the structure of the economic environment. We find that although the theories relax opposite assumptions of the rational expectations ideal, their mathematical and predictive similarities make them difficult to distinguish. Even if irrationality generates financial anomalies, their disappearance still may hinge on rational learning-that is, on the ability of rational arbitrageurs and their investors to reject competing rational explanations for observed price patterns.

This paper illustrates how non-contractual legal rules sometimes alleviate contractual incompleteness. A serious incompleteness in debt contracts is the borrower's ability to fraudulently transfer assets to third parties, rendering the borrower insolvent. The incompleteness arises because contractual remedies are ineffective against third-party transferees who are not bound by the debt contract, while the borrower has no assets to recover. Fraudulent conveyance law is a non-contractual legal rule allowing recovery against these transferees. This increases debt capacity most dramatically for borrowers with highly liquid assets. Without non-contractual legal rules, high liquidation value implies low debt capacity. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: G32; G38.

Journal Article Competing Theories of Financial Anomalies Get access Alon Brav, Alon Brav Duke University Address correspondence to Alon Brav, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, NC 27708-0120, or e-mail: [email protected]. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar J.B. Heaton J.B. Heaton Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott and Duke University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 15, Issue 2, 2 January 2002, Pages 575–606, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/15.2.575 Published: 16 June 2015

We test the limits of arbitrage argument for the survival of irrationality-induced financial anomalies by sorting securities on their individual residual variability as a proxy for idiosyncratic risk – a commonly asserted limit to arbitrage – and comparing the strength of anomalous returns in low versus high residual variability portfolios. We find no support for the limits of arbitrage argument to explain undervaluation anomalies (small value stocks, value stocks generally, recent winners, and positive earnings surprises) but strong support for the limits of arbitrage argument to explain overvaluation anomalies (small growth stocks, growth stocks generally, recent losers, and negative earnings surprises). Other tests also fail to support the limits of arbitrage argument for the survival of overvaluation anomalies and suggest that at least some of the factor premiums for size, book-to-market, and momentum are unrelated to irrationality protected by limits to arbitrage.

A risk‐averse manager's overconfidence makes him less conservative. As a result, it is cheaper for firms to motivate him to pursue valuable risky projects. When compensation endogenously adjusts to reflect outside opportunities, moderate levels of overconfidence lead firms to offer the manager flatter compensation contracts that make him better off. Overconfident managers are also more attractive to firms than their rational counterparts because overconfidence commits them to exert effort to learn about projects. Still, too much overconfidence is detrimental to the manager since it leads him to accept highly convex compensation contracts that expose him to excessive risk.