Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study investigates the role of the business press in the pricing of accounting information. Using a comprehensive dataset of more than 111,000 earnings-related business press articles published from 2000 to 2010, we find that press coverage of the annual earnings announcement mitigates cash flow mispricing, but has a negligible effect on accrual mispricing. We provide evidence that this impact is driven primarily by the press disseminating the information more broadly, rather than by the creation of new content that helps investors understand the implications of accounting information. Our results suggest that the business press plays an important role in facilitating the market's ability to efficiently impound accounting information into stock prices and provide new insights into the role of the business press as an information intermediary in capital markets.

In order to help enterprises to achieve high-quality development and improve the capital market regulatory policies by supporting with more factual basis from China, this paper conducts research on clarifying impact mechanism of digital transformation on M&A efficiency of listed companies. Taking the mergers and acquisitions of listed companies from 2007 to 2021 as a research sample, the influence mechanism of the digital transformation degree of companies on their M&A efficiency was studied. The research results show that the digital transformation of listed companies will improve their M&A efficiency. Digital transformation will reduce the degree of mispricing stocks of M&A companies, curb conflicts between managers and agents of M&A companies, and improve their M&A efficiency. Further research finds that the promotion effect of digital transformation on M&A efficiency is more significant in non-state-owned companies, with a higher degree of financing constraint and high analyst attention. In the future, regulatory authorities should actively promote the digital transformation of listed companies, curb mispricing and management agency problems in the capital market with digital governance, and improve the efficiency of mergers and acquisitions in the capital market. This paper not only provides a more factual basis on concrete case from China but also enriches the related empirical analysis on corporate digital transformation and M&A efficiency.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the drivers for voluntary intellectual capital (IC) reporting based on agency theory. This study responds to calls for critical investigations of IC reporting utilising Goebel’s (2015a) IC measuring approach to investigate the role of IC value and mispricing for IC reporting. Design/methodology/approach A mandatory management report offers a unique research setting in Germany. The content analysis results of 428 German management reports are used in a regression analysis with leverage, ownership diffusion, IC value and mispricing. Additionally, a propensity score matching approach examines the relationship between IC reporting and IC value. Findings The regression results show that companies use voluntary IC reporting to encounter mispricing. IC reporting is negatively associated with leverage, whereas ownership diffusion and IC value show no significant results. The propensity score matching approach is also not significant. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to strengthening and testing agency theory for IC reporting. As mispricing is identified to play an important role for IC reporting, IC research should account for mispricing. Practical implications The findings suggest to reopen a discussion on the declared aims of the German management report and the international integrated reporting model to provide information on value creation, as IC value shows no link to IC reporting. Originality/value This study innovatively links IC reporting to IC value and mispricing to investigate drivers for voluntary IC reporting.

We propose a new measure of fund investment skill, active fund overpricing (AFO), encapsulating the fund's active share of investments, the direction of fund active bets with regard to mispriced stocks, and the dispersion of mispriced stocks in the fund's investment opportunity set. We find that fund activeness is not sufficient for outperformance: high (low) AFO funds taking active bets on the wrong (right) side of stock mispricing achieve inferior (superior) fund performance. However, high AFO funds receive higher flows during periods of high investor sentiment, when the performance-flow relation becomes weaker.

This survey reviews the literature on sell-side analysts' forecasts and their implications for asset pricing. We review the literature on the supply and demand forces shaping analysts' forecasting decisions as well as on the implications of the information they produce for both the cash flow and the discount rate components of security returns. Analysts' forecasts bring prices in line with the expectations they embody, consistent with the notion that they contain information about future cash flows. However, analysts' forecasts exhibit predictable biases, and the market appears to underreact to the information in forecasts and to not fully filter the biases in forecasts. Analysts' forecasts are also helpful in estimating expected returns on securities, but evidence on the relation between analysts' forecasts and expected returns is still scarce. We conclude by identifying unanswered questions and offering suggestions for future research.

This paper demonstrates that the ability of fund managers to create value depends on market liquidity conditions, which in turn introduces a liquidity risk exposure (beta) for skilled managers. We document an annual liquidity beta performance spread of 4% in the cross section of mutual funds over the period 1983–2014. Liquidity risk premia explain an insubstantial fraction of this spread; instead, the spread can be attributed to the differential ability of high liquidity beta funds to outperform across high and low market liquidity states, due to a differential rate of either mispricing correction or intensity of informed trading. Tests based on mispricing, proxied by a comprehensive set of 68 anomalies, and tick-by-tick trades, from a large proprietary institutional trading data set, corroborate the contribution of these channels. The results highlight the interaction between informed investors, mispricing, and liquidity beta. The Internet appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2851 . This paper was accepted by Neng Wang, finance.

This paper explores the mispricing relative to the capital asset pricing model through an equilibrium model. We find that both the strong risk preference dependent on good market states and strong risk aversion dependent on bad market states can produce high mispricing. Choosing the China stock market, the largest emerging market dominated by individual investors and known for its volatile nature in a short history as our sample, the empirical results also support our theoretical findings. Overall, our paper sheds light on the mispricing caused by the investor’s risk preference reference-dependent on market states.

Theory posits that investors can rationally infer the implications of strategic nondisclosure for firm value, pressuring managers to disclose information voluntarily. This study documents that the lack of an earnings guidance predicts an abnormal return of—41 basis points around the subsequent quarterly earnings announcement, suggesting that investors do not fully incorporate the implications of nonguidance. Further analyses demonstrate that limitations in price efficiency, driven by investors' limited attention and shortselling constraints, explain the mispricing of nonguidance and are associated with less guidance issuance. Our results collectively highlight limited price efficiency as another friction when studying managers' strategic disclosure decisions.

We study the mispricing information present in the target prices of US and international analysts. We hypothesize that asymmetry in the value-relevance of the information that managers supply to analysts, combined with asymmetry in the incentives facing analysts to curry favor with managers, leads to analyst-claimed undervaluation being more predictive of future stock returns than analyst-claimed overvaluation. Our empirical tests isolate analyst-claimed mispricing by first removing analysts’ estimates of the cost of equity from the returns implied by target prices and then separating analyst-claimed undervaluation from overvaluation. We find that target prices only predict future returns (at 16 cents to 18 cents on the dollar) when analysts claim undervaluation, not when they claim overvaluation. We also observe that analyst-claimed undervaluation predicts future returns more strongly after firms experience low returns and when macro-driven valuation uncertainty is low.

This paper investigates the ability of asset pricing models to explain the cross-section of average stock returns of anomaly portfolios. A large sample of 286 anomaly portfolios are employed. We perform out-of-sample cross-sectional regression tests of both prominent asset pricing models and a relatively new model dubbed the ZCAPM. Empirical tests strongly support the lesser known ZCAPM but not other multifactor models. Further analyses of out-of-sample mispricing errors of the models reveal that the ZCAPM provides much more accurate pricing of anomaly portfolios than other models. We conclude that anomalies are anomalous to popular multifactor models but not the ZCAPM. By implication, the efficient market hypothesis is supported.