Does advertising really work?

Purpose This paper aims to examine the direct and indirect effects of advertising on investor behavior. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a novel and direct measure of investor attention: the number of investors whose watch lists has the stock. Findings The authors find that beyond its direct effect through information dissemination, advertising has an indirect effect with regard to grabbing investor attention and the trading response. The authors further find that an increase in attention induces a positive influence on the impact of advertising on investor behavior. Originality/value First, it complements studies of home bias, in which investors are more likely to buy familiar stocks. Second, it also complements the literature on advertising and investor attention and on attention and capital markets. Third, with a new and unambiguous measure of investor attention. Fourth, combining the direct and indirect aspects, this study presents a detailed description of the financial market effect of advertising.

Institutional Investors’ Trading Response to Stock Market Anomalies: Evidence from Korea

This study examines whether institutions are sophisticated investors that exploit stock characteristics known to predict future returns in Korea, using data from 2000 to 2018. We analyze the institutional demand, measured as a change in institutional ownership, for stocks with eight well-known anomalies as well as the future abnormal returns of institutional trading. We find that, generally, institutions do not trade consistently with stock anomaly predictions because they are reluctant to hold both highly overvalued and highly undervalued stocks. Although they use a few anomalies, they use these characteristics passively to avoid stocks known to underperform rather than to pick stocks known to outperform. Furthermore, the positive returns on long-legs are concentrated on stocks sold by institutions, while the negative returns on short-legs are concentrated on stocks bought by them. Our finding casts doubt on the widely-accepted notion that institutions are skilled investors and that institutional arbitrage trading corrects any mispricing in the market. To the contrary, institutions’ loss-averse trading behaviors cause or magnify mispricing.

Consecutive Earnings Surprises: Small and Large Trader Reactions

ABSTRACT Prior research demonstrates that investors respond differently to earnings surprises that are part of a string of consecutive earnings increases or surprises than to those that are not. To shed light on who values these patterns, I compare trading responses of small and large traders to earnings surprises that occur during a series of positive or negative surprises. I find that the relative intensity of small traders' trading response (and, to a lesser extent, that of medium traders) to earnings surprises generally increases as a series progresses. Small traders respond more negatively to the second (third) negative surprise in a series than to the first (second), and more positively for the first three surprises in a positive series. Moreover, I find that announcement-period returns are related to the trading of small and medium traders. These results suggest that less sophisticated smaller traders, responding to earnings series, contribute to previously documented pricing patterns. Data Availability: All data used in this study, with the exception of data obtained from an anonymous discount brokerage firm, are publicly available from the sources indicated in the text.