China’s green-finance expansion shifts attention from how much firms disclose to whether transition claims remain credible when verification tightens. Using a 2007–2022 panel of Chinese A-share listed firms (crash-risk measures available through 2021), we measure transition credibility by decomposing firms’ transition signals into verifiable actions, narrative disclosure, and realized environmental outcomes, and we propose a transparent narrative–action gap measure (WordsMinusActions = WordsIndex − ActionIndex) to capture ‘words without deeds.’ Exploiting the staggered rollout of China’s Central Environmental Protection Inspections (CEPI) as a plausibly exogenous increase in verification and enforcement intensity, we find that firms with high pre-CEPI narrative–action gaps experience a sharp increase in stock price crash risk around inspections: NCSKEW rises by about 0.09 in the inspection year and 0.20 in the following year (≈0.24 SD), and DUVOL rises by about 0.04 and 0.10 (≈0.27 SD) relative to low-gap firms. Consistent with enforcement discipline, these high-gap firms subsequently reduce disclosure intensity and increase verifiable green actions, narrowing the narrative–action gap after CEPI. The evidence supports governance that rewards verifiable action and consistency over disclosure volume in markets.

This paper asks whether a personally experienced bubble crash leaves a lasting imprint on investment style. We study this in China’s stock market, where two technology-growth booms —the 2014–2015 Internet boom and the 2025–2026 AI hardware boom—share a similar narrative but are separated by a decade of generational turnover. Following managers across the mutual funds they run from 2013Q1 to 2026Q1, we compare those who lived through the 2015 crash with otherwise similar managers who entered afterwards. We find that the caution of veteran managers reflects a scar rather than a symptom of ageing. Conditional on age and career length, managers who lived through the 2015 crash hold more value exposure and chase technology stocks less when prices have been rising, and this reluctance deepens with how much the crash hurt them—crash-window tenure, performance shortfalls, redemption pressure—rather than with age. These demand differences reach asset prices as well: stocks held disproportionately by managers without bubble memories carry significantly higher subsequent left-tail risk, whereas crash-experienced ownership stabilises the stock, particularly when ownership is broad. Heterogeneous institutional beliefs rooted in career experience therefore shape not only how managers invest but also the crash risk of the assets they hold.

The economic issue and development limitation has emerged during the middle-income stage, accumulated numerous hidden risks of 'irrational exuberance' and 'irrational depression' development and security becomes 'castles in the air', trapped in the predicament of economic hollowing-out and industrial hollowing-out.

This paper investigates the sales seasonality premium (Gustavo et al., 2020) in the Chinese stock market. We document a significant sales seasonality premium in the cross section of stocks listed on Chinese market. A long-short strategy of buying low-sales stocks and shorting high-sales season stocks generate a monthly return of 0.84% with a Newey-West t statistic of 2.94. The return spreads between low-sales season stocks and high-sales season stocks are robust to well-known anomalies and are larger in magnitude among large-cap companies. We also find that the return spreads are more pronounced within industries with relatively fixed patterns in product demand. The sales seasonality premium in the Chinese stock market is found to be a combined result of investor rationality and irrationality.

Technology firms are often financed on narratives about products, contracts, customers, and technological progress well before these developments appear in accounting statements. We ask when such narratives become economically informative. Our central idea is that narratives should matter more once they can be linked to later verifiable outcomes rather than treated as stand-alone text.Using listed Chinese technology firms, we develop a validated corporate narrative framework for bank-affiliated investment, a setting in which investors must screen with soft information ex ante and then monitor hard realization and downside risk ex post. We use GPT-5.1 to extract business claims from management discussion, investor-relations records, exchange Q&A, and earnings-roadshow materials, and to label later claim–evidence pairs as support, partial support, conflict, duplicate, or irrelevant. We then connect these labels to official announcements, procurement awards, permits, project updates, and negative-event disclosures to construct a validated firm-month signal. The broad merged panel contains 592 firms and 30,169 firm-month observations; the main return tests use 576 firms and 18,230 firm-month observations over 2022–2024. A simple production rule that combines a low-narrative-premium component with hard-narrative and hard-event anchors, together with a separate downside-risk gate, delivers an implementable annualized long-short return of 8.93% in bank-invested firms after trading costs. The signal is much weaker in non-bank firms, predicts future gross-margin improvement more strongly than future ROE, and improves downside screening.

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.

We propose the AI Narrative Gap as a novel firm characteristic—the systematic divergence between a firm’s AI strategic narrative intensity and its subsequent AI capital expenditure commitment—and document its capital market consequences. Using Chinese A-share listed firms from 2015 to 2022, we show that firms with a wider AI Narrative Gap attract significantly more optimistic and less accurate analyst earnings forecasts. These distorted expectations, in turn, predict lower subsequent stock returns, lower industry-adjusted abnormal returns, and weaker future accounting performance. A double-sort portfolio placing firms simultaneously in the highest tercile of the AI Narrative Gap and highest tercile of analyst optimism earns a mean return 22.8 percentage points below that of the lowest tercile on both dimensions (t = −5.10). The return reduction in the AI Narrative Gap coefficient is attenuated but not eliminated after controlling for optimism, consistent with a partial expectation-distortion channel. Collectively, these results establish the AI Narrative Gap as a cross-sectionally informative firm characteristic that captures the credibility of a firm’s AI strategic identity, with systematic implications for analyst expectations and asset prices.

Prevailing research, assuming developed financial markets, concludes that Chinese firms heavily rely on “short-term credit for long-term investment.”We challenge this view, arguing that China's vibrant informal financial system provides crucial alternative funding. Consequently, the severity of this maturity mismatch is likely overestimated. To investigate this, we examine strategic alliances as a representative informal institution. Our analysis confirms that such alliances significantly mitigate maturity mismatch, revealing that they enhance information sharing and reduce transaction costs. This provides initial evidence of informal institutions' critical role in addressing this issue. Given the prevalence of similar arrangements in China—like private lending and inter-corporate financing—our findings highlight the need to look beyond formal systems. This perspective not only recalibrates the understanding of corporate financing in China but also opens ample avenues for future research on informal finance's role in emerging economies.

This paper studies how mutual fund managers update their beliefs as macroeconomic conditions change. Using regulator-mandated reports from Chinese mutual funds, we measure the intensity of belief updating from year-over-year changes in stated outlooks and decompose those updates into macro and micro themes. We show that belief updating is state-contingent: funds with more intensive belief updating shift their narratives toward macro (micro) topics during recessions (expansions) and concurrently reduce (increase) procyclical stock exposures and on-site company visits. This state-contingent belief updating predicts superior performance when matched to prevailing economic conditions, with macro-oriented updates paying off mainly for high-updating funds in recessions and micro-oriented updates paying off more broadly in expansions. Investors recognize this signal of skill, allocating greater flows to these funds, especially when past returns are less informative. Finally, belief updating is stronger for younger managers and for funds from newer, smaller families, consistent with signaling under career and competitive pressures.

Periods of market crisis are often accompanied by heightened fear and information overload, which can induce information avoidance behaviors such as the ostrich effect. While prior research has documented investors’ tendency to avoid unfavorable information, little is known about how different information sources—and trust in those sources—jointly shape such behavior under extreme uncertainty. Drawing on Granular Interaction Thinking Theory (GITT) and employing Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) analytics, this study examines how investors’ regular securities-related information sources is associated with the ostrich effect during the 2022 market downturn in China, and how these associations are conditioned by trust. Using survey data from 1,451 Chinese individual stock investors, we model investors’ recalled frequency of temporarily disengaging from stock investing as an indicator of information avoidance. The results show that regularly consulting professional sources, financial newspapers, and online forums is associated with information avoidance, whereas reliance on personal relationships and company disclosures is not. Importantly, trust moderates these relationships in distinct ways. Higher trust in professional sources is associated with reduced information avoidance, while higher trust in financial newspapers and online forums amplifies avoidance behavior. Among all sources, the interaction between trust and information referral is strongest for financial newspapers. These findings suggest that trust does not uniformly mitigate fear-driven avoidance. Instead, when combined with high-entropy information sources, trust can exacerbate cognitive and emotional strain, increasing investors’ propensity to disengage. By highlighting the joint roles of informational entropy and trust, this study advances behavioral finance research and offers practical insights for investors, policymakers, and regulators seeking to improve decision-making resilience during periods of market crisis.