Why is price momentum absent in China? Since momentum is commonly considered arising from investors’ under-reaction to fundamental news, we decompose monthly stock returns into news- and non-news-driven components and document a news day return continuation along with an offsetting non-news day reversal in China. The non-news day reversal is particularly strong for stocks with high retail ownership, relatively less recent positive news articles, and limits to arbitrage. Evidence on order imbalance suggests that stock returns overshoot on news days due to retail investors' excessive attention-driven buying demands, and mispricing gets corrected by institutional investors on subsequent non-news days. To avoid this tug-of-war in stock price, we use a signal that directly captures the recent news performance and re-document a momentum-like underreaction to fundamental news in China.

Using the unique regulatory setting from the Hong Kong stock market with both shortable and no-short stocks, we document that no-short stocks on average earn significantly higher average returns than shortable stocks. Furthermore, stocks that comove more with the portfolio of no-short stocks than with the portfolio of shortable stocks on average earn higher subsequent abnormal returns. Additions to and deletions from the shorting list only partially contribute to the no-short return premium. To interpret our findings, we provide a theoretical model showing that rational investors’ discounting for the mispricing risk of no-short stocks can lead to the no-short return premium.

Behavioral theories suggest that investor misperceptions and market mispricing will be correlated across firms. We use equity and debt financing to identify common misval- uation across firms. A zero-investment portfolio (UMO, undervalued minus overvalued) built from repurchase and issue firms captures comovement in returns beyond that in some standard multifactor models, and substantially improves the Sharpe ratio of the tangency portfolio. Loadings on UMO incrementally predict the cross-section of returns on both portfolios and individual stocks, even among firms not recently involved in external fi- nancing activities. Further evidence suggests that UMO loadings proxy for the common component of a stock’s misvaluation.

Prior literature shows that implied volatility spreads between call and put options are positively related to future underlying stock returns. In this paper, however, we demon- strate that the volatility spreads are negatively related to future out-of-the-money call option returns. Using unique data on option volumes, we reconcile the two pieces of evidence by showing that option demand by sophisticated, firm investors drives the posi- tive stock return predictability based on volatility spreads, while demand by less sophis- ticated, customer investors drives the negative call option return predictability. Overall, our evidence suggests that volatility spreads contain information about both firm funda- mentals and option mispricing.

We propose a novel measure, DOT, to capture belief divergence on extreme tail events in stock returns. Defined as the standard deviation of expected probability forecasts generated by distinct information processing functions and neural network models, DOT exhibits significant predictive power for future stock returns. A value-weighted (equal-weighted) long-short portfolio based on DOT yields an average return of -1.07% (-0.98%) per month. Furthermore, we document novel evidence supporting a risk-sharing channel underlying the negative relation between DOT and the equity premium following extreme negative shocks. Finally, our findings are also in line with a mispricing channel in normal periods.

This study investigates the relationship between investors’ prior gains or losses and their adoption of extrapolative beliefs. Our findings indicate that investors facing prior losses tend to rely on optimistic extrapolative beliefs, whereas those experiencing prior gains adopt pessimistic extrapolative beliefs. These results support the theory of motivated beliefs. The interaction between the capital gain overhang and extrapolative beliefs results in noteworthy mispricing, yielding monthly returns of approximately 1%. Motivated extrapolative beliefs comove with investors’ survey expectations and trading behavior, and help explain momentum anomalies. Additionally, households are susceptible to this belief distortion. Institutional investors can avoid overpriced stocks associated with motivated (over-)optimistic extrapolative beliefs.

This paper examines the effects of superstitious psychology on investors’ decision making in the context of Mercury retrograde, a special astronomical phenomenon meaning “everything going wrong”. Using natural experiments in the Chinese stock market, we find a significant decline in stock prices, approximately -3.14% in the vicinity of Mercury retrogrades, with a subsequent reversal following these periods. The Mercury effect is robust after considering seasonality, the calendar effect, and well-known firm-level characteristics. Our mechanism tests are consistent with model-implied conjectures that stocks covered by higher investor attention are more influenced by superstitious psychology in the extensive and intensive channels. A superstitious hedge strategy motivated by our findings can generate an average annualized market-adjusted return of 8.73%.

This study investigates the relationship between investors’ prior gains or losses and their adoption of extrapolative beliefs. Our findings indicate that investors facing prior losses tend to rely on optimistic extrapolative beliefs, whereas those experiencing prior gains adopt pessimistic extrapolative beliefs. These results support the theory of motivated beliefs. The interaction between the capital gain overhang and extrapolative beliefs results in noteworthy mispricing, yielding monthly returns of approximately 1%. Motivated extrapolative beliefs comove with investors’ survey expectations and trading behavior, and help explain momentum anomalies. Additionally, households are susceptible to this belief distortion. Institutional investors can avoid overpriced stocks associated with motivated (over-)optimistic extrapolative beliefs.

This paper examines the effects of superstitious psychology on investors’ decision making in the context of Mercury retrograde, a special astronomical phenomenon meaning “everything going wrong”. Using natural experiments in the Chinese stock market, we find a significant decline in stock prices, approximately -3.14% in the vicinity of Mercury retrogrades, with a subsequent reversal following these periods. The Mercury effect is robust after considering seasonality, the calendar effect, and well-known firm-level characteristics. Our mechanism tests are consistent with model-implied conjectures that stocks covered by higher investor attention are more influenced by superstitious psychology in the extensive and intensive channels. A superstitious hedge strategy motivated by our findings can generate an average annualized market-adjusted return of 8.73%.

Although China has made great economic achievements, it is still an emerging market, and the financial market systems are different from those of developed countries. As such, the market phenomenon presented in mature financial markets may be different from that in the Chinese stock market. This paper reveals that the impact of volume on anomalous returns in the Chinese stock market shows different effects on overvalued stocks and undervalued stocks, while volume in the mature US financial market shows the classic theory of volume amplifying the effect of anomalous returns (Han et al. 2021). What causes this? Our research indicates that the relationship between volume and future stock returns in China differs from that in US due to the stringent short-selling restrictions imposed in China. In China, strong short-selling restrictions are in place, a decrease in volume has a significantly negative relationship with future returns for both overvalued (t-value = 6.50) and undervalued (t-value = 2.45) stocks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the underlying mechanism in the effects of volume on the future returns of overpriced and underpriced stocks are distinct.