RATIONAL EXPECTATIONS AND THE DYNAMIC ADJUSTMENT OF SECURITY ANALYSTS' FORECASTS TO NEW INFORMATION

We report the results of unbiasedness tests of security analysts' earnings forecasts. By examining how analysts incorporate new information into their updated earnings forecasts we can analyze directly the effect of new information on analysts' forecast revisions and evaluate whether these revised forecasts converge to rational expectations forecasts. The forecasts made by security analysts participating in the Institutional Brokers Estimate System (IBES) database are analyzed. Using standard statistical tests, we reject the simple form of the rational expectations hypothesis. However, by extending the standard tests used in previous studies, we obtain results that suggest that analysts' earnings forecasts conform to a dynamic form of rationality. The tendency of revised forecasts to converge stochastically toward the rational expectations forecast cautions against the rejection of more complicated forms of rationality.     

HOUSEHOLD RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES: COST AND QUALITY TRADEOFFS

The effectiveness of government investments in health care dependson the public's response to price and quality as well as onwhether these expenditures actually improve health outcomes.Consumers, even those in low-income households, are willingto pay fees for better health care if the fees translate intoimproved access and reliability. But when prices rise withouta concomitant improvement in services, malnutrition and childmortality rates increase. The availability of basic health carehas a relatively greater impact on households with low incomesor low education, or both, than does the provision of more specializedservices. This article describes the types of services for whichhouseholds indicate they are willing to pay increased fees.It also indicates the potential gains from improving these services,as well as the consequences of moving faster on cost recoverythan on providing improved or better-targeted services.      

STOCK MARKET REACTION TO GOOD AND BAD INFLATION NEWS

This article shows that differentiating between good and bad inflation news is important to understanding how inflation affects stock market returns. Summing positive and negative inflation shocks as in previous studies tends to wash out or mute the effects of inflation news on stock returns. More specifically, we find that, depending on the economic state, positive and negative inflation shocks can produce a variety of stock market reactions. We conclude that the effect of inflation on stock returns is conditional on whether investors perceive inflation shocks as good or bad news in different economic states.     

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, VOLUME, AND THE MONDAY EFFECT

New evidence is presented on the nature of the Monday effect in stock market returns. Using stock returns for the years 1962-1986, the Monday effect is found to be confined to periods of negative market returns. Monday's returns are no different from other weekday returns in periods of positive returns. In addition, trading volume and the Monday effect are related. Monday's volume is lower than the other weekdays. When returns are compared controlling for trading volume, we find that the Monday effect is confined to negative return periods with above normal volume, which represent only two per cent of the sample period.     

SECURITY ANALYST FORECASTS AND THE EARNINGS YIELD ANOMALY

This paper tests for existence of a positive relationship between the earnings yield anomaly and the earnings forecast error (EFE) effect. The earnings yield anomaly recognizes that stocks with low price-earnings ratios produce positive risk-adjusted returns. The EFE effect refers to the positively related stock price response to differences in reported earnings per share (EPS) and the EPS previously forecast by security research analysts. The within group method is used in order to remove the effect of the EFE. Empirical research findings based on 1979-1988 data, indicate that the EFE effect does not account for the earnings yield anomaly.     

SYMMETRIC VERSUS ASYMMETRIC CONDITIONAL COVARIANCE FORECASTS: DOES IT PAY TO SWITCH?

Volatilities and correlations for equity markets rise more after negative returns shocks than after positive shocks. Allowing for these asymmetries in covariance forecasts decreases mean‐variance portfolio risk and improves investor welfare. We compute optimal weights for international equity portfolios using predictions from asymmetric covariance forecasting models and a spectrum of expected returns. Investors who are moderately risk averse, have longer rebalancing horizons, and hold U.S. equities benefit most and may be willing to pay around 100 basis points annually to switch from symmetric to asymmetric forecasts. Accounting for asymmetry in both variances and correlations significantly lowers realized portfolio risk.     

BRITISH UNIVERSITIES' RESPONSES TO EVENTS LEADING TO GRANT REDUCTIONS ANNOUNCED IN JULY 1981

This paper arises from a research project funded by the Department of Education and Science (DES). It relates an analysis of the events leading to the announcement of significant recurrent grant reductions by the University Grants Committee (UGC) on 1st July 1981 to the responses of nine universities to these events. It draws policy implications for the DES and the UGC, or the proposed Universities Funding Council (UFC), and an important managerial lesson for university managements, i.e. the need to respond positively to warnings of reductions in grants.