[This article examines potential explanations for the wealth effects surrounding dividend change announcements. We find that new information concerning managers' investment policies is not revealed at the time of the dividend announcement. We also find that dividend increases (decreases) are associated with subsequent significant increases (decreases) in capital expenditures over the three years following the dividend change, and that dividend change announcements are associated with revisions in analysts' forecasts of current earnings. These results are consistent with the cash flow signaling hypothesis rather than the free cash flow hypothesis as an explanation for the observed stock price reactions to dividend change announcements.]

This paper employs recent developments in agency theory to study the impact that compensation contracts have on portfolio management investment decisions in a restricted mean-variance world. Two types of incentive contracts for mutual fund managers are analyzed and compared. The results show that the “symmetric” contract, while not necessarily eliminating agency costs, dominates the “bonus” contract in aligning the manager's interests with those of the investor.

This article evaluates the tax-loss-selling hypothesis against the window-dressing hypothesis as explanations for turn-of-the-year anomalies. The authors examine differences between securities dominated by individual investors versus those dominated by institutional investors and find that the effect is more pervasive in the former. Controlling for capitalization, they find that, in early January (late December), stocks with greater individual investor interest outperform (underperform) stocks with greater institutional investor interest. These results hold for both stocks that previously appreciated in value and stocks that previously depreciated in value. The results are more consistent with the tax-loss-selling hypothesis as an explanation for the turn-of-the-year effect.

ABSTRACT In this address, I discuss differences across investor and manager motivations for considering sustainable finance— value versus values motivations—and how these differences contribute to misunderstandings about environmental, social, and governance investment approaches. The finance research community has the ability and responsibility to help clear up these misunderstandings through additional research, which I suggest.

Although institutional investors have a preference for large capitalization stocks, over time they have shifted their preferences toward smaller, riskier securities. These changes in aggregate preferences have arisen primarily from changes in the preferences of each class of institution, rather than changes in the importance of different classes. Evidence also suggests that recent growth in institutional investment combined with this shift in preferences helps explain why markets in general, and smaller stocks in particular, have exhibited greater firm-specific risk and liquidity in recent years. Additional analyses suggest that institutional investors moved toward smaller securities because such securities offer "greener pastures."

According to the Diamond-Verrecchia hypothesis, if increases in short interest are correlated with information that is not yet public, they should precipitate a price adjustment. Stocks with unexpected increases in short interest are found to generate statistically significant, but small, negative abnormal returns for a short period around the announcement date. When the sample is divided into stocks with and without tradable options, nonoptioned stocks closely mimic these results but the optioned stocks do not. In a cross-sectional analysis of individual firms, the short-term negative abnormal returns are found to be 1) more negative, the higher the degree of unexpected short interest and, 2) less negative if the firm has tradable options.

This article examines potential explanations for the wealth effects surrounding dividend change announcements. We find that new information concerning managers' investment policies is not revealed at the time of the dividend announcement. We also find that dividend increases (decreases) are associated with subsequent significant increases (decreases) in capital expenditures over the three years following the dividend change, and that dividend change announcements are associated with revisions in analysts' forecasts of current earnings. These results are consistent with the cash flow signaling hypothesis rather than the free cash flow hypothesis as an explanation for the observed stock price reactions to dividend change announcements.

The authors test the hypothesis that, when their compensation is linked to relative performance, managers of investment portfolios likely to end up as 'losers' will manipulate fund risk differently than those managing portfolios likely to be 'winners.' An empirical investigation of the performance of 334 growth-oriented mutual funds during 1976 to 1991 demonstrates that mid-year losers tend to increase fund volatility in the latter part of an annual assessment period to a greater extent than mid-year winners. Furthermore, the authors show that this effect became stronger as industry growth and investor awareness of fund performance increased over time.

We document that backfilling in the ExecuComp database introduces a data-conditioning bias that can affect inferences and make replicating previous work difficult. Although backfilling can be advantageous due to greater data coverage, if not addressed, the oversampling of firms with strong managerial incentives and higher subsequent returns leads to a significant upward bias in abnormal compensation, pay-for-performance sensitivity, and the magnitudes of several previously established relations. The bias also can lead to one misinterpreting the appropriate functional form of a relation and whether the data support one compensation theory over another. We offer methods to address this issue.

We find that institutional ownership concentration is positively related to the pay‐for‐performance sensitivity of executive compensation and negatively related to the level of compensation, even after controlling for firm size, industry, investment opportunities, and performance. These results suggest that the institutions serve a monitoring role in mitigating the agency problem between shareholders and managers. Additionally, we find that clientele effects exist among institutions for firms with certain compensation structures, suggesting that institutions also influence compensation structures through their preferences.