scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mark L. Mitchell

Bio: Mark L. Mitchell is an academic researcher from University of Chicago. The author has contributed to research in topics: Arbitrage & Hedge fund. The author has an hindex of 31, co-authored 39 publications receiving 12454 citations. Previous affiliations of Mark L. Mitchell include Clemson University & Harvard University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders, and that the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties.
Abstract: As in previous decades, merger activity clusters by industry during the 1990s. One particular kind of industry shock, deregulation, becomes a dominant factor, accountings for nearly half of the merger activity since the late 1980s. In contrast to the 1980s, mergers in the 1990s are mostly stock swaps, and hostile takeovers virtually disappear. Over our 1973 to 1998 sample period, the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders. Consistent with that, we find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers.

2,080 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors study industry-level patterns in takeover and restructuring activity during the 1982-1989 period and find significant differences in both the rate and time-series clustering of these activities across 51 industries.

1,571 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors re-examine three large samples of major managerial decisions, namely acquisitions, equity issues, and equity repurchases, and find little evidence of reliable long-term abnormal stock price performance for the three samples.
Abstract: A rapidly growing literature claims to reject the semi-strong form of the efficient market hypothesis by producing large estimates of long-term abnormal stock price performance subsequent to major corporate events. We re-examine three large samples of major managerial decisions, namely acquisitions, equity issues, and equity repurchases, and find little evidence of reliable long-term abnormal stock price performance for the three samples. The analysis shows (a) crosssectional dependence of abnormal returns leads to inflated test statistics and (b) estimates of abnormal performance are small, and largely limited to small stocks, after accounting for the known mis-pricings of the model used to generate the results.

1,357 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors re-examine three large samples of major managerial decisions, namely acquisitions, equity issues, and equity repurchases, and find little evidence of reliable long-term abnormal stock price performance for the three samples.
Abstract: A rapidly growing literature claims to reject the semi-strong form of the efficient market hypothesis by producing large estimates of long-term abnormal stock price performance subsequent to major corporate events. We re-examine three large samples of major managerial decisions, namely acquisitions, equity issues, and equity repurchases, and find little evidence of reliable long-term abnormal stock price performance for the three samples. The analysis shows (a) cross-sectional dependence of abnormal returns leads to inflated test statistics and (b) estimates of abnormal performance are small, and largely limited to small stocks, after accounting for the known mis-pricings of the model used to generate the results.

1,260 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders, and the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties.
Abstract: As in previous decades, merger activity clusters by industry during the 1990s. One particular kind of industry shock, deregulation, becomes a dominant factor, accounting for nearly half of the merger activity since the late 1980s. In contrast to the 1980s, mergers in the 1990s are mostly stock swaps, and hostile takeovers virtually disappear. Over our 1973 to 1998 sample period, the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders. Consistent with that, we find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers.

626 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A review of the market efficiency literature can be found in this article, where the authors discuss the work that they find most interesting, and offer their views on what we have learned from the research on market efficiency.
Abstract: SEQUELS ARE RARELY AS good as the originals, so I approach this review of the market efficiency literature with trepidation. The task is thornier than it was 20 years ago, when work on efficiency was rather new. The literature is now so large that a full review is impossible, and is not attempted here. Instead, I discuss the work that I find most interesting, and I offer my views on what we have learned from the research on market efficiency.

5,506 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a model that links an asset's market liquidity and traders' funding liquidity, i.e., the ease with which they can obtain funding, to explain the empirically documented features that market liquidity can suddenly dry up, has commonality across securities, is related to volatility, is subject to flight to quality, and comoves with the market.
Abstract: We provide a model that links an asset's market liquidity - i.e., the ease with which it is traded - and traders' funding liquidity - i.e., the ease with which they can obtain funding. Traders provide market liquidity, and their ability to do so depends on their availability of funding. Conversely, traders' funding, i.e., their capital and the margins they are charged, depend on the assets' market liquidity. We show that, under certain conditions, margins are destabilizing and market liquidity and funding liquidity are mutually reinforcing, leading to liquidity spirals. The model explains the empirically documented features that market liquidity (i) can suddenly dry up, (ii) has commonality across securities, (iii) is related to volatility, (iv) is subject to “flight to quality¶, and (v) comoves with the market, and it provides new testable predictions. Keywords: Liquidity Risk Management, Liquidity, Liquidation, Systemic Risk, Leverage, Margins, Haircuts, Value-at-Risk, Counterparty Credit Risk

3,638 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors study how investor sentiment affects the cross-section of stock returns and find that when sentiment is low, subsequent returns are relatively high for small stocks, young stocks, high volatility stocks, unprofitable stocks, non-dividend-paying stocks, extreme growth stocks, and distressed stocks.
Abstract: We study how investor sentiment affects the cross-section of stock returns. We predict that a wave of investor sentiment has larger effects on securities whose valuations are highly subjective and difficult to arbitrage. Consistent with this prediction, we find that when beginning-of-period proxies for sentiment are low, subsequent returns are relatively high for small stocks, young stocks, high volatility stocks, unprofitable stocks, non-dividend-paying stocks, extreme growth stocks, and distressed stocks. When sentiment is high, on the other hand, these categories of stock earn relatively low subsequent returns.

3,454 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a model that links a security's market liquidity and traders' funding liquidity, i.e., their availability of funds, to explain the empirically documented features that market liquidity can suddenly dry up (i) is fragile), (ii) has commonality across securities, (iii) is related to volatility, and (iv) experiences “flight to liquidity” events.
Abstract: We provide a model that links a security’s market liquidity — i.e., the ease of trading it — and traders’ funding liquidity — i.e., their availability of funds. Traders provide market liquidity and their ability to do so depends on their funding, that is, their capital and the margins charged by their financiers. In times of crisis, reductions in market liquidity and funding liquidity are mutually reinforcing, leading to a liquidity spiral. The model explains the empirically documented features that market liquidity (i) can suddenly dry up (i.e. is fragile), (ii) has commonality across securities, (iii) is related to volatility, (iv) experiences “flight to liquidity” events, and (v) comoves with the market. Finally, the model shows how the Fed can improve current market liquidity by committing to improve funding in a potential future crisis.

3,166 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors summarizes and explains the main events of the liquidity and credit crunch in 2007-08, starting with the trends leading up to the crisis and explaining how four different amplification mechanisms magnified losses in the mortgage market into large dislocations and turmoil in financial markets.
Abstract: This paper summarizes and explains the main events of the liquidity and credit crunch in 2007-08. Starting with the trends leading up to the crisis, I explain how these events unfolded and how four different amplification mechanisms magnified losses in the mortgage market into large dislocations and turmoil in financial markets.

3,033 citations