We investigate the relationship between investor attention and financial market anomalies. We find that anomaly returns tend to be higher following high-attention days. The result is robust after controlling for the effect of news and in a natural experiment setting in which a stock market regulation and rounding errors generate exogenous variations in attention. An analysis of order imbalances suggests that large traders trade on anomaly signals more aggressively upon observing higher attention. We discuss the extent to which the findings are driven by inattention-driven underreaction, bias amplification, or coordinated arbitrage mechanisms, thereby providing insight into the understanding of anomalies.

Using machine learning–based algorithms, we measure key impressions about sell‐side analysts using their LinkedIn photos. We find that impressions of analysts’ trustworthiness ( TRUST ) and dominance ( DOM ) are positively associated with forecast accuracy, especially after recent in‐person meetings between analysts and firm managers. High TRUST also enhances stock return sensitivity to forecast revisions, especially for stocks with high institutional ownership. In contrast, the impression of analysts’ attractiveness ( ATTRACT ) is only positively associated with accuracy for new analysts or when a firm has a new CEO or CFO. Furthermore, while high DOM helps male analysts’ chances of attaining All‐Star status, it reduces female analysts’ accuracy and the likelihood of winning the All‐Star award. In addition, the relation between TRUST and accuracy is modulated by the disclosure environment and is attenuated by Regulation Fair Disclosure. Our results suggest that face impressions influence analysts’ access to information and the perceived credibility of their reports.

We show that institutional investors are more likely to invest in firms from regions to which they have stronger social ties but find no evidence that these investments earn a differential return. Firms in regions with stronger social ties to locations with many institutional investors have higher valuations and liquidity. These effects are largest for small firms with little analyst coverage, suggesting that the investors’ behavior is explained by their increased awareness of firms in socially proximate locations. Our results highlight that the social structure of regions affects firms’ access to capital and contributes to geographic differences in economic outcomes.