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.

We examine whether the characteristics of economically linked firms predict stock returns in the Chinese A-share market. We construct two peer-based signals: a peeraverage (PA) signal that aggregates the characteristics of fundamentally similar firms, and a peer-deviation (PD) signal that summarizes a firm’s characteristic deviations from industry-peer averages. PA captures shared fundamental information, whereas PD benchmarks a firm’s relative position against economically comparable peers. Portfolio sorts, factor-spanning tests, and Fama–MacBeth regressions reveal economically meaningful and statistically significant return predictability for both signals, with generally larger portfolio returns among non-state-owned enterprises. Both signals retain significant incremental predictive power after controlling for the full set of own-firm characteristics and flexible machine-learning forecasts based solely on these characteristics. Changes in both signals also predict future earnings, while return predictability is generally stronger among firms receiving less investor attention, consistent with limited-attention-induced underreaction. These findings highlight the distinct informational and benchmarking roles of economic networks and their predictive value beyond firms’ own characteristics.

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.

Whether risk aversion is time varying and countercyclical is central to modern asset pricing, yet evidence remains limited and is based mainly on experimental, survey, or aggregate stock market data. We provide individual-level evidence from 10 million Chinese auto insurance contracts from 2011 to 2017, estimating policyholders’ risk aversion from deductible choices. We find that risk aversion is time varying and countercyclical. The estimates are negatively related to lottery and stock trading, positively related to insurance sales and bond trading, and vary with psychological factors, including seasonal mood, “zodiac year,” and calendar events.

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.

Investors’ prior experiences with a stock substantially affect their willingness to repurchase it. This paper explores the repurchase effect, a psychological bias in which investors are reluctant to repurchase stocks that have appreciated after a prior sale. To quantify this bias, we develop a novel stock-level measure, termed Repur, and investigate its implications for cross-sectional asset pricing. Our findings show that stocks with higher Repur tend to experience reduced future buying pressure from investors, which in turn results in lower subsequent returns. Economically, long-short portfolios based on Repur yield annualized abnormal returns exceeding 23% for equal-weighted and 11% for value-weighted risk-adjusted returns. Further analyses show that the pricing effect of Repur is more pronounced following periods of high investor sentiment, for stocks with greater arbitrage constraints, and for firms with smaller investor bases. Out-of-sample evidence from China confirms the significant pricing impact of the repurchase effect.

This study integrates microstructure theory with asset pricing to investigates how the idiosyncratic volatility (IVOL) puzzle operates through specialized liquidity risk channels in China’s A-shares market. We employ intraday transactions data to perform a novel decomposition of liquidity into its variable (informational) and fixed (transitory) components. We show that the anomalous negative relationship between IVOL and future returns emerges from the intricate interaction of liquidity risk exposure, information and arbitrage constraints, and measurement biases. Specifically, the variable component tied to informed trading and adverse selection exposes high-IVOL stocks to greater arbitrage risk during liquidity shocks, while the fixed component exacerbates their vulnerability to short-term market-making cost fluctuations. Our results reveal that the IVOL puzzle is not a statistical artifact but a rational pricing phenomenon driven by omitted liquidity risk, mediated by the country’s unique institutional environment and monetary conditions.

We interpret industry discount rates as proxies for value investment, grounded in Q theory, while capturing gambling preferences through salience theory. Integrating these perspectives, we propose a novel asset pricing model (ST-ICAPM) that unifies value investment and salience factors, evaluating its pricing efficacy across Chinese industries from 2004 to 2023. Empirical results show that investment factors tend to negatively predict future returns, while growth factors command risk premia. However, profitability factors exhibit limited explanatory power. Investor expectations are primarily driven by profit growth, emphasizing the need to enhance profit stability for a value-oriented market. Salience intensity, especially when measured via eigenvector centrality within industry networks, serves as a strong negative predictor of returns, emphasizing the importance of conceptual connections over purely economic linkages in shaping investor behavior. Robust tests confirm that the ST-ICAPM outperforms benchmark models (FF3, CARHART4, FF5, ICAPM, and STCAPM) in terms of pricing power. Our findings emphasize the need to promote value investing and restrain gambling behavior as essential strategies to cultivate a resilient capital market in China.

This paper studies missing firm characteristics in the Chinese stock market and their implications for empirical asset pricing. Relative to the U.S. market, missing firm characteristics in China remain underexplored despite substantial differences in data availability and disclosure environments. Using a dataset of 106 firm characteristics from 1992 to 2021, we document a pronounced cliff-shaped pattern in missingness, with missing rates falling sharply after 2000. We then compare expectation-maximization (EM) and mean imputation (MN) in both univariate characteristic-sorted portfolios and machine-learning applications that combine many predictors. Results indicate that, in univariate analysis, the two methods produce very similar return spreads because they assign largely the same stocks to the extreme deciles. In machine-learning applications, however, EM-imputed data generally produce better-performing prediction-sorted portfolios than mean-imputed data. These findings provide new evidence on missing firm characteristics in a major emerging market and highlight the importance of imputation choices in machine-learning asset-pricing applications.

This study documents a novel, culturally embedded calendar anomaly in the Shanghai Composite Index (SSE Composite) derived from the Nayin (纳音) Five Elements system—a traditional Chinese sexagenary calendrical framework. Utilizing daily data from 1990 to 2025, the analysis reveals a significant correlation between elemental two-year periods and market performance. Key findings include: Earth-Element Dominance: Earth periods exhibit a 100% positive return rate (4/4) with a mean return of +123.4%. The effect size is substantial (Cohen’s d=1.50) compared to non-Earth periods. Metal-Element Declines: Metal periods universally display a structural peak-and-decline morphology, with an average −30.4% late-cycle decline. Water-Element Momentum: Water periods systematically mirror the directional momentum of their predecessors with 100% accuracy (3/3). These patterns fail to replicate in the S&P 500, suggesting a unique cultural-behavioral channel where traditional metaphysical cycles modulate investor sentiment in the Chinese market. This research provides the first empirical validation of Nayin-based cyclicality in financial asset pricing, offering a predictive framework for institutional and individual investors focused on the China-specific market. Keywords: Calendar anomaly, Chinese traditional calendar, Nayin Five Elements, Shanghai Composite Index, Cultural behavioral finance, Sexagenary Cycle, Market Sentiment Declaration of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest. To ensure the objectivity of this research, the author further declares that he holds no active personal trading positions in the securities discussed. The author's personal trading account has been inactive with zero transactions over the past five years.