We develop a stock market model with differences of opinion and short-sales constraints. When breadth is low—i.e., when few investors have long positions—this signals that the short-sales constraint is binding tightly, and that prices are high relative to fundamentals. Thus reductions in breadth should forecast lower returns. Using data on mutual fund holdings, we find that stocks whose change in breadth in the prior quarter is in the lowest decile of the sample underperform those in the top decile by 6.38% in the twelve months after formation. Adjusting for size, book-to-market, and momentum, the figure is 4.95%.

We develop a series of cross-sectional regression specifications to forecast skewness in the daily returns of individual stocks. Negative skewness is most pronounced in stocks that have experienced (1) an increase in trading volume relative to trend over the prior six months, consistent with the model of Hong and Stein (NBER Working Paper, 1999), and (2) positive returns over the prior 36 months, which fits with a number of theories, most notably Blanchard and Watson's (Crises in Economic and Financial Structure. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1982, pp. 295–315) rendition of stock-price bubbles. Analogous results also obtain when we attempt to forecast the skewness of the aggregate stock market, though our statistical power in this case is limited.

We investigate the effect of scale on performance in the active money management industry. We first document that fund returns, both before and after fees and expenses, decline with lagged fund size, even after accounting for various performance benchmarks. We then explore a number of potential explanations for this relationship. This association is most pronounced among funds that have to invest in small and illiquid stocks, suggesting that these adverse scale effects are related to liquidity. Controlling for its size, a fund's return does not deteriorate with the size of the family that it belongs to, indicating that scale need not be bad for performance depending on how the fund is organized. Finally, using data on whether funds are solo-managed or team-managed and the composition of fund investments, we explore the idea that scale erodes fund performance because of the interaction of liquidity and organizational diseconomies.

ABSTRACT We investigate the effects of managerial outsourcing on the performance and incentives of mutual funds. Fund families outsource the management of a large fraction of their funds to advisory firms. These funds underperform those run internally by about 52 basis points per year. After instrumenting for a fund's outsourcing status, the estimated underperformance is three times larger. We hypothesize that contractual externalities due to firm boundaries make it difficult to extract performance from an outsourced relationship. Consistent with this view, outsourced funds face higher powered incentives; they are more likely to be closed after poor performance and excessive risk‐taking.