Many empirical studies find that the distribution of stock returns departs from normality. In such cases, it is desirable to employ a statistical estimation procedure that may be more efficient than ordinary least squares. This paper describes various robust methods, which have attracted increasing attention in the statistical literature, in the context of estimating beta risk. The empirical analysis documents the potential efficiency gains from using robust methods as an alternative to ordinary least squares, based on both simulated and actual returns data.

This paper examines the price effect of institutional stock trading, using a unique data set that reports the transactions (large and small) of 37 large institutional money management firms. The direction of each trade and the identity of the management firm behind each trade are known. Although institutional trades are associated with some price pressure, we find that the average effect is small. There is also a marked asymmetry between the price impact of buys versus sells. We relate our findings to various hypotheses on the elasticity of demand for stocks, the cost of executing transactions, and the determinants of market impact. Although market capitalization and relative trade size influence the market impact of a trade, the dominant influence is the identity of the money manager behind the trade.

We compare execution costs (market impact plus commission) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq for institutional investors. The differences in cost generally conform to each market's area of specialization. Controlling for firm size, trade size, and the money management firm's identity, costs are lower on Nasdaq for trades in comparatively smaller firms, while costs for trading the larger stocks are lower on NYSE. The cost differences estimated from a regression model are, however, sensitive to the choice of time period.

The authors compare execution costs (market impact plus commission) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq for institutional investors. The differences in cost generally conform to each market's area of specialization. Controlling for firm size, trade size, and the money management firm's identity, costs are lower on Nasdaq for trades in comparatively smaller firms, while costs for trading the larger stocks are lower on NYSE. The cost differences estimated from a regression model are, however, sensitive to the choice of time period.

We compare execution costs (market impact plus commission) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq for institutional investors. The differences in cost generally conform to each market's area of specialization. Controlling for firm size, trade size, and the money management firm's identity, costs are lower on Nasdaq for trades in comparatively smaller firms, while costs for trading the larger stocks are lower on NYSE. The cost differences estimated from a regression model are, however, sensitive to the choice of time period.

All trades executed by thirty-seven large investment management firms from July 1986 to December 1988 are used to study the price impact and execution cost of the entire sequence('package') of trades that the authors interpret as an order. The authors find that market impact and trading cost are related to firm capitalization, relative package size, and, most importantly, to the identity of the management firm behind the trade. Money managers with high demands for immediacy tend to be associated with larger market impact.

All trades executed by thirty-seven large investment management firms from July 1986 to December 1988 are used to study the price impact and execution cost of the entire sequence('package') of trades that the authors interpret as an order. The authors find that market impact and trading cost are related to firm capitalization, relative package size, and, most importantly, to the identity of the management firm behind the trade. Money managers with high demands for immediacy tend to be associated with larger market impact.

All trades executed by 37 large investment management firms from July 1986 to December 1988 are used to study the price impact and execution cost of the entire sequence (“package”) of trades that we interpret as an order. We find that market impact and trading cost are related to firm capitalization, relative package size, and, most importantly, to the identity of the management firm behind the trade. Money managers with high demands for immediacy tend to be associated with larger market impact.

Analysts' earnings forecasts are influenced by their desire to win investment banking clients. We hypothesize that the equity bull market of the 1990s, along with the boom in investment banking business, exacerbated analysts' conflicts of interest and their incentives to strategically adjust forecasts to avoid earnings disappointments. We document shifts in the distribution of earnings surprises and related changes in the market's response to surprises and forecast revisions. The evidence for shifts is stronger for growth stocks, where conflicts of interest are more pronounced. However, shifts are less notable for analysts without ties to investment banking and in international markets.

ol ion ix3i b noiX3 .31UO2 r1I 01 n3'ig i 3iiOfl nibu!3ni 3ib13 11th r&D ELOLJJ 4JJG 2c9'UqbOiJJc o pocp cp6 9'C9'q6WIC LG2G9'LCGL 9'Uq cp iuiwuc bL9'ccJvJoucL GLGOL& (J2) OL 9' qfl,GL6IJ 9'bbLO9'Cp)