We study whether commodity risk is efficiently priced in the cross-section of US equities. We first provide novel evidence on firm-level risk exposure to up to 42 individual commodities. We then construct a mispricing measure as the realized return less the commodity-risk-implied return, and find that it strongly predicts next-month return reversal beyond the traditional short-term reversal. This commodity-risk-mispricing reversal is substantially stronger among small, less analyst- or media-covered stocks, is weakly associated with investor sentiment, and is less prevalent among firms that engage in commodity hedging. In particular, underpricing among these hedgers often remains persistent and even intensifies after the 2004 financialization of commodity markets. This implies that despite the overall decline in mispricing, financialization has likely introduced more costs than benefits for corporate risk management.

Entry of arbitrageurs need not increase with larger mispricing. Arbitrageurs trade mispriced assets and close positions once mispricing is corrected, seeking to minimize carry cost (shadow value of trading capital). More deployed arbitrage capital shortens the wait, lowering carry costs but also payoffs. Discretionary entry is profitable only in a “Goldilocks” region, where deployed capital is neither too low nor too high: enough capital is deployed to accelerate correction, while profits remain. The region’s upper bound follows from the condition that every sequence of entrants has a last entrant who cannot rely on subsequent discretionary entry.

Less informative strategic advice can produce more informative prices. We study an informed adviser who both trades on his own account and receives compensation linked to the post-report price. Holding private information fixed, we show how promotion can restrain manipulation motivated by trading profits. At sufficiently high reputation, raising compensation enough to eliminate false bad news used to buy cheaply improves market price informativeness in every equilibrium, even though the strategic adviser’s report becomes uninformative. Under further sufficient conditions, always-favourable strategic reporting yields the most informative current prices among equilibria at every interior reputation. We also derive analytical sufficient conditions under which higher reputation lowers the adviser’s expected payoff and worsens prices within the same equilibrium. Financial influencers motivate the joint incentives: a reward for higher prices can counteract the incentive to depress prices before buying, while greater credibility need not benefit its holder.

This study constructs a new mispricing factor for the Chinese equity market. We propose two-, three-, and four-factor models that incorporate this factor alongside the market, size, and value factors. Our models, especially the two-factor version, consistently outperform the Fama and French models and perform as well as other leading models in explaining Chinese anomalies. This study advances asset pricing literature specific to China and offers a promising new framework for analyzing mispricing in emerging markets.

This paper identifies the marginal investors in China’s stock market and examines their impact on stock pricing. To clearly distinguish between the equity constraint channel and the debt constraint channel, we construct the capital ratio factor and the debt constraint factor for banks and securities companies, the two most critical financial intermediaries in China’s stock market. Our results demonstrate that banks indeed serve as marginal investors and influence stock market efficiency primarily through the equity capital constraint channel. Furthermore, we find that the bank capital ratio factor significantly explains stock mispricing in China, with the single-factor model based on bank equity capital producing substantially smaller pricing errors compared to traditional multi-factor models.

The essay delves into the impact of environmental uncertainty on asymmetric mispricing utilizing the data from listed firms in China spanning from 2007 to 2023. Our analysis reveals that environmental uncertainty amplifies stock mispricing within capital markets, whether upward or downward. Diverging from prior research, we distinguish between upward and downward mispricing and reveal the black box of environmental uncertainty affecting stock mispricing from dual channels. Specifically, environmental uncertainty intensifies upward mispricing through heightened earnings management and exacerbates downward mispricing by boosting investor irrationality. Furthermore, we explore the heterogeneous impact of different media coverage. In the downward mispricing sample, negative media exacerbated the relationship between the two, while positive coverage played a mitigating role. In the upward mispricing sample, only negative reports have a significant impact, and mitigate the impact of uncertainty on mispricing. Our research on media heterogeneity once again proves that it is a double-edged sword. Our research indicates that improving the capacity to recognize different mispricing mechanisms in various market directions can greatly boost decision-making efficiency. Meanwhile, it is vital to strengthen professional ethics in media organizations and encourage more objective reporting. These efforts can jointly contribute to improve he efficiency of emerging capital markets.

Mutual funds create liquidity for investors by issuing demandable equity shares while holding illiquid securities. We study the implications of this liquidity creation by examining frequent trading suspensions in China, which temporarily eliminate market liquidity in affected stocks. These suspensions cause significant mispricing of mutual funds due to inaccurate valuations of their illiquid holdings. We find that investors actively acquire information about suspended stocks held by mutual funds, driving flows into underpriced funds. This information is subsequently incorporated into stock prices when trading resumes. Our findings suggest that mutual fund liquidity creation stimulates information acquisition about illiquid, information-sensitive assets.

We examine the risk-return trade-off in market anomalies within the A-share market, showing that even decaying anomalies may proxy for latent risk factors. To balance forecast bias and variance, we integrate the 1/N and mean-variance frameworks, minimizing out-of-sample forecast error. Treating anomalies as tradable assets, we construct optimized long-short portfolios with strong performance: an average annualized Sharpe ratio of 1.56 and a certainty-equivalent return of 29.4% for a meanvariance investor. These premiums persist post-publication and are largely driven by liquidity risk exposures. Our results remain robust to market frictions, including shortsale constraints and transaction costs. We conclude that even decaying market anomalies may reflect priced risk premia rather than mere mispricing. This research provides practical guidance for academics and investors in return predictability and asset allocation, especially in the unique context of the Chinese A-share market.

We examine the risk-return trade-off in market anomalies within the A-share market, showing that even decaying anomalies may proxy for latent risk factors. To balance forecast bias and variance, we integrate the 1/N and mean-variance frameworks, minimizing out-of-sample forecast error. Treating anomalies as tradable assets, we construct optimized long-short portfolios with strong performance: an average annualized Sharpe ratio of 1.56 and a certainty-equivalent return of 29.4% for a mean-variance investor. These premiums persist post-publication and are largely driven by liquidity risk exposures. Our results remain robust to market frictions, including short-sale constraints and transaction costs. We conclude that even decaying market anomalies may reflect priced risk premia rather than mere mispricing. This research provides practical guidance for academics and investors in return predictability and asset allocation, especially in the unique context of the Chinese A-share market.

This study investigates the link between market arbitrage risk and liquidity risk pricing in a conditional asset pricing framework. We estimate comparative models both at the portfolio and firm level in the Chinese A- and B-shares to test behavioral hypotheses with respect to foreign ownership restrictions and market segmentation. Results show that conditional liquidity premium and risk betas exhibit pronounced asymmetry across share classes which could be attributed to differentiated levels of market mispricing. Specifically, stocks with a greater degree of information asymmetry and retail ownership are more sensitive to liquidity risks when the market arbitrage risk increase. Further policy impact analysis shows that China’s market liberalization efforts, contingent upon its recent stock connect programs, conditionally reduce the price of liquidity risk for connected stocks.