Recent empirical research in finance has uncovered two families of pervasive regularities: underreaction of stock prices to news such as earnings announcements, and overreaction of stock prices to a series of good or bad news. In this paper, we present a parsimonious model of investor sentiment, or of how investors form beliefs, which is consistent with the empirical findings. The model is based on psychological evidence and produces both underreaction and overreaction for a wide range of parameter values. � 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. JEL classification: G12; G14

We propose a theory of securities market under- and overreactions based on two well-known psychological biases: investor overconfidence about the precision of private information; and biased self-attribution, which causes asymmetric shifts in investors ’ confidence as a function of their investment outcomes. We show that overconfidence implies negative long-lag autocorrelations, excess volatility, and, when managerial actions are correlated with stock mispricing, public-event-based return predictability. Biased self-attribution adds positive short-lag autocorrela-tions ~“momentum”!, short-run earnings “drift, ” but negative correlation between future returns and long-term past stock market and accounting performance. The theory also offers several untested implications and implications for corporate fi-nancial policy. IN RECENT YEARS A BODY OF evidence on security returns has presented a sharp challenge to the traditional view that securities are rationally priced to re-f lect all publicly available information. Some of the more pervasive anoma-

We model a market populated by two groups of boundedly rational agents: “newswatchers” and “momentum traders.” Each newswatcher observes some private information, but fails to extract other newswatchers’ information from prices. If information diffuses gradually across the population, prices underreact in the short run. The underreaction means that the momentum traders can profit by trendchasing. However, if they can only implement simple (i.e., univariate) strategies, their attempts at arbitrage must inevitably lead to overreaction at long horizons. In addition to providing a unified account of under- and overreactions, the model generates several other distinctive implications.

Abstract not found

As in previous decades, merger activity clusters by industry during the 1990s. One particular kind of industry shock, deregulation, becomes a dominant factor, accounting for nearly half of the merger activity since the late 1980s. In contrast to the 1980s, mergers in the 1990s are mostly stock swaps, and hostile takeovers virtually disappear. Over our 1973 to 1998 sample period, the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders. Consistent with that, we find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers.

It is well known that firms are more likely to issue equity when their market values are high, relative to book and past market values, and to repurchase equity when their market values are low. We document that the resulting effects on capital structure are very persistent. As a consequence, current capital structure is strongly related to historical market values. The results suggest the theory that capital structure is the cumulative outcome of past attempts to time the equity market.

The basic paradigm of asset pricing is in vibrant flux. The purely rational approach is being subsumed by a broader approach based upon the psychology of investors. In this approach, security expected returns are determined by both risk and misvaluation. This survey sketches a framework for understanding decision biases, evaluates the a priori arguments and the capital market evidence bearing on the importance of investor psychology for security prices, and reviews recent models.

We analyze tests for long-run abnormal returns and document that two approaches yield well-specified test statistics in random samples. The first uses a traditional event study framework and buy-and-hold abnormal returns calculated using carefully constructed reference portfolios. Inference is based on either a skewnessadjusted t-statistic or the empirically generated distribution of long-run abnormal returns. The second approach is based on calculation of mean monthly abnormal returns using calendar-time portfolios and a time-series t-statistic. Though both approaches perform well in random samples, misspecification in nonrandom samples is pervasive. Thus, analysis of long-run abnormal returns is treacherous. COMMONLY USED METHODS TO TEST for long-run abnormal stock returns yield misspecified test statistics, as documented by Barber and Lyon ~1997a! and Kothari and Warner ~1997!. 1 Simulations reveal that empirical rejection levels routinely exceed theoretical rejection levels in these tests. In combination, these papers highlight three causes for this misspecification. First, the

Various theories have been proposed to explain momentum in stock returns. We test the gradual-information-diffusion model of Hong and Stein (1999) and establish three key results. First, once one moves past the very smallest stocks, the profitability of momentum strategies declines sharply with firm size. Second, holding size fixed, momentum strategies work better among stocks with low analyst coverage. Finally, the effect of analyst coverage is greater for stocks that are past losers than for past winners. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that firm-specific information, especially negative information, diffuses only gradually across the investing public. SEVERAL RECENT PAPERS HAVE DOCUMENTED that, at medium-term horizons ranging from three to 12 months, stock returns exhibit momentum-that is, past winners continue to perform well, and past losers continue to perform poorly. For example, Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), using a U.S. sample of NYSE/ AMEX stocks over the period from 1965 to 1989, find that a strategy that buys past six-month winners (stocks in the top performance decile) and shorts past six-month losers (stocks in the bottom performance decile) earns approximately one percent per month over the subsequent six months. Not only is this an economically interesting magnitude, but the result also appears to be robust: Rouwenhorst (1998) obtains very similar numbers in a

I review empirical research on the relation between capital markets and financial statements.The principal sources of demand for capital markets research in accounting are fundamental analysis and valuation, tests of market efficiency, and the role of accounting numbers in contracts and the political process.The capital markets research topics of current interest to researchers include tests of market efficiency with respect to accounting information, fundamental analysis, and value relevance of financial reporting.Evidence from research on these topics is likely to be helpful in capital market investment decisions, accounting standard setting, and corporate financial