This paper establishes a new empirical fact: Mutual funds' flow-performance sensitivity is a hump-shaped function of aggregate risk-factor realizations. Explanations based on extant theories can explain only a fraction of the pattern. We thus develop a new parsimonious model. It assumes Bayesian investors who are uncertain about the degree to which fund returns are exposed to systematic risk. Fund performance is then less informative about manager skill when factor realizations are larger in absolute value. The data also support the out-of-sample prediction that the hump shape is more pronounced for funds with more uncertain risk loadings.

Firms until recently were effectively constrained to hold liquid assets in non-interest-bearing accounts. As a result, the cost of capital of firms' liquid-assets portfolios exceeded the return, especially when the risk-free interest rate was high. The spread between cost and return is the cost of carry. Changes in the cost of carry explain the dynamics of corporate "cash" holdings both in the United States and abroad, and the level of cost of carry explains the level of liquid-asset holdings across countries. We conclude that current US corporate cash holdings are not abnormal in a historical or international comparison.

When Bayesian risk-averse investors are uncertain about their assets’ cash flows’ exposure to systematic risk, stock prices react to news more in downturns than in upturns, implying higher volatility in downturns and negatively skewed returns. In good times, less desirable assets with low average cash flows and high market risk perform similar to more desirable assets with high average cash flows and low market risk, rendering them difficult to distinguish. However, their performance diverges in downturns, enabling better inference. Consistent with these predictions, stocks’ reaction to earnings news is up to 70% stronger in downturns than in upturns. Received July 7, 2014; editorial decision March 20, 2018 by Editor Laura Starks.

This paper establishes a new empirical fact: Mutual funds’ flow-performance sensitivity is a hump-shaped function of aggregate risk-factor realizations. Explanations based on extant theories can explain only a fraction of the pattern. We thus develop a new parsimonious model. It assumes Bayesian investors who are uncertain about the degree to which fund returns are exposed to systematic risk. Fund performance is then less informative about manager skill when factor realizations are larger in absolute value. The data also support the out-of-sample prediction that the hump shape is more pronounced for funds with more uncertain risk loadings.Received October 24, 2014; editorial decision October 11, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

We model an anxious agent as one who is more risk averse with respect to imminent risks than with respect to distant risks. Based on a utility function that captures individual subjects’ behavior in experiments, we provide a tractable theory relaxing the restriction of constant risk aversion across horizons and show that it generates rich implications. We first apply the model to insurance markets and explain the high premia for short-horizon insurance. Then, we show that costly delegated portfolio management, investment advice, and withdrawal fees emerge as endogenous features and strategies to cope with dynamic inconsistency in intratemporal risk-return trade-offs.

Inspired by experimental evidence, we amend the recursive utility model to let risk aversion decrease with the temporal horizon. Our pseudo-recursive preferences remain tractable and retain appealing features of the long-run risk framework, notably its success at explaining asset pricing moments. In addition, our model addresses two challenges to the standard model. Calibrating the agents’ preferences to explain the equity premium no longer implies an extreme preference for early resolutions of uncertainty. Horizon-dependent risk aversion helps resolve key puzzles in finance on the valuation of assets across maturities and captures the term structure of equity risk premiums and its dynamics.

Firms until recently were effectively constrained to hold liquid assets in non-interest-bearing accounts. As a result, the cost of capital of firms’ liquid-assets portfolios exceeded the return, especially when the risk-free interest rate was high. The spread between cost and return is the cost of carry. Changes in the cost of carry explain the dynamics of corporate “cash” holdings both in the United States and abroad, and the level of cost of carry explains the level of liquid-asset holdings across countries. We conclude that current US corporate cash holdings are not abnormal in a historical or international comparison.

We find that 43% of firms that make payouts also raise capital during the same year, resulting in 31% of aggregate payouts being externally financed, primarily with debt. Most financed payouts cannot be explained by payout smoothing in response to volatile earnings or investment (rather, they are the result of firms persistently setting payouts above free cash flow). In fact, 25% of aggregate payouts could not have been paid without the firms simultaneously raising capital. Profitable firms with moderate growth use debt-financed payouts to jointly manage their leverage and cash, thus highlighting the close relationship between payout and capital structure decisions.

Many natural competitors are jointly held by a small set of large institutional investors. In the U.S. airline industry, taking common ownership into account implies increases in market concentration that are 10 times larger than what is “presumed likely to enhance market power” by antitrust authorities. Within‐route changes in common ownership concentration robustly correlate with route‐level changes in ticket prices, even when we only use variation in ownership due to the combination of two large asset managers. We conclude that a hidden social cost—reduced product market competition—accompanies the private benefits of diversification and good governance.

We show that collateral constraints restrict firm entry and postentry growth, using French administrative data and cross‐sectional variation in local house‐price appreciation as shocks to collateral values. We control for local demand shocks by comparing treated homeowners to controls in the same region that do not experience collateral shocks: renters and homeowners with an outstanding mortgage, who (in France) cannot take out a second mortgage. In both comparisons, an increase in collateral value leads to a higher probability of becoming an entrepreneur. Conditional on entry, treated entrepreneurs use more debt, start larger firms, and remain larger in the long run.