Models that examine investors’ motivations to trade often make opposite predictions about the relation between trading decisions and past returns. We find that, in the aggregate, both buyer- and seller-initiated trades increase with past returns. The difference between buyer- and seller-initiated trades is negatively related to short horizon returns but positively related to returns over longer horizons. Tax-loss-related seller-initiated trades in December and January are accompanied by increased buyer-initiated trades. Past returns significantly affect trading decisions, and these findings are consistent with a number of different models of trading behavior.

We investigate the value of active mutual fund management by examining the stockholdings and trades of mutual funds. We fine that stocks widely held by funds do not outperform other stocks. However, stocks purchased by funds have significantly higher returns than stocks they sell—this is true for large stocks as well as small stocks, and for value stocks as well as growth stocks. We find that growth-oriented funds exhibit better stock selection skills than income-oriented funds. Finally, we find only weak evidence that funds with the best past performance have better stock-picking skills than funds with the worst past performance.

This paper models the strategic pre-tender offer share acquisition problem faced by potential bidders in takeovers. The model provides a rational explanation for the seemingly anomalous empirical evidence that the information about the impending tender offers is not fully conveyed through the potential bidders' pre-tender offer trades and for the evidence that a large fraction of bidders do not hold any target shares prior to launching the tender offers. Additional testable implications are also provided.

This paper critically evaluates the claim in recent papers that precisely estimated betas explain the cross-sectional differences in expected returns across size-based portfolios. In these studies, the correlations between firm size and betas across the test portfolios are close to one in magnitude, yielding potentially spurious inferences. This paper shows that when the test portfolios are constructed so that the correlations between firm size and beta are small, the betas explain virtually none of the cross-sectional differences in portfolio returns.