Weights in the Toronto Stock Exchange 300 index are determined by the market values of the included stocks' public f loats. In November 1996, the exchange implemented a previously announced revision of its definition of the public f loat. This revision, which increased the f loats and the index weights of 31 stocks, conveyed no information and had no effect on the legal duties of shareholders. Affected stocks experienced statistically significant excess returns of 2.3 percent during the event week, and no price reversal occurred as trading volume returned to normal levels. These findings support downward sloping demand curves for stocks.An obvious event with which to examine the slope of demand curves for stocks is one that changes supply. In the absence of new information, a shift in supply should not affect stock prices if demand curves for stocks are f lat. Scholes~1972!, using a sample of secondary equity distributions, asks whether stocks are "unique works of art" or merely abstract claims to residual cash f lows with many close substitutes, as is assumed in much of finance theory. Scholes finds that the negative price impact of secondary offerings depends on the seller's identity-implying the revelation of unfavorable informationand rules out a pure supply effect. Mikkelson and Partch~1985!, also using a sample of registered and unregistered secondary offerings, find weak evidence of downward sloping demand curves, but are unable to cleanly distinguish this explanation from the alternative explanation based on unfavorable information.A different class of events-additions to widely followed stock market indexes-ostensibly provides a setting where information effects should not be present. Shleifer~1986! documents a permanent price increase for stocks * All authors are at the University of Alberta. We thank René Stulz~the editor!, Harry Turtle, and seminar participants at the University of Alberta, the EFMA, the EFA, and the NFA meetings for helpful comments. We are especially grateful to an anonymous referee for many insightful suggestions. We also thank Lou Hollinger for clarifying several legal issues, James McVicar and Paul D'Souza of the Ontario Securities Commission for answering queries about filing requirements, Lori Bak of Benefits Canada for providing statistics on indexing in Canada, John Kaszel of IFIC for providing index fund information, and William MacKenzie for providing ownership data for non-TSE firms. We retain responsibility for any remaining errors. Aditya Kaul acknowledges financial support from the Pearson fellowship at

Consumers' sensitivities to price changes are an important input to strategic and tactical decisions. It has been argued that price sensitivities depend on factors such as advertising. Prior studies on the effect of advertising on consumer price sensitivity have found seemingly conflicting results. We analyze the characteristics of previous studies in marketing and generate a set of three empirical generalizations. These are (1) an increase in price advertising leads to higher price sensitivity among consumers, (2) the use of price advertising leads to lower prices, and (3) an increase in nonprice advertising leads to lower price sensitivity among consumers. These generalizations have important implications for managers and researchers. Managers need to coordinate their advertising and pricing decisions to attain maximum profits. For researchers, our summary and discussion of empirical results provide directions for future.advertising, pricing research, empirical generalization

u ccqi IICJr1qIJ © uoicc ycu 10 qic o rcxr U01 10 cccccq wo btdwbp' umA pc dnoicq aupon cxbjici bcurnrou bLoAIqcq qrn © TÔ2 P El! BIL1OJ OOU1OU Yf B°q' uq Vcl!1?v K'I VII UJJ12 Lc2cLAcq J0L12CCIIOU2 flLGfl O ECOUOUJIC JçcCUJJ yVCL0CC0U0UJJC Vu? obiniou cxbi.ccq w qioac ot lpc vnqJoI2 uq nor JO2C o w jrouj bIIbGL bLI O 14BEK caccp bww u ycr I,LlcIu' uq pucurnrjouj nucc uq jpc ccouq flqiOL orqq jc 10 1pvu Ipc opu OJIU omqou LOL juucvj 2nbboLr jy 1P UJCLIC!U }IUUCC 'yOc I1OIF NC cJcuo!Ajcqc BPLV 1CUIJJU2 OL WCLC WIJCC KCCLAC 2Arw

No abstract

We analyze a comprehensive sample of more than 10,000 U.S. OTC stocks. We provide much needed descriptive evidence on this market and show that the OTC market is a large, diverse, and dynamic trading environment with a rich set of regulatory and disclosure regimes, comprising venue rules and state laws beyond SEC regulation. We also exploit the institutional richness of the OTC market and analyze two key dimensions of market quality, liquidity and crash risk, across firms and regulatory regimes. We find that OTC firms that are subject to stricter regulatory regimes and disclosure requirements have higher market quality (higher liquidity and lower crash risk). Our analysis points to an important trade-off in regulating the OTC market and protecting investors: Lowering regulatory requirements (e.g., for disclosure) reduces the compliance burden for smaller firms, but also reduces market quality.