Miller (1977) hypothesizes that dispersion of investor opinion in the presence of short-sale constraints leads to stock price overvaluation. However, previous empirical tests of Miller's hypothesis examine the valuation effects of only one of these two necessary conditions. We examine the valuation effects of the interaction between differences of opinion and shortsale constraints. We find robust evidence of significant overvaluation for stocks that are subject to both conditions simultaneously. Stocks are not systematically overvalued when either one of these two conditions is not met.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract

We examine debenture yields over the period 1983–1991 to evaluate the market's sensitivity to bank‐specific risks, and conclude that investors have rationally reflected changes in the government's policy toward absorbing private losses in the event of a bank failure. Although this evidence does not establish that market discipline can effectively control banking firms, it soundly rejects the hypothesis that investors cannot rationally differentiate among the risks undertaken by the major U.S. banking firms.

We examine the long‐term stock performance following dividend initiations and resumptions from 1927 to 1998. We show that postannouncement abnormal returns are significantly positive for equally weighted calendar time portfolios, but become insignificant when the portfolios are value weighted. Moreover, the equally weighted results are not robust across subsamples. We also document postannouncement reductions in the risk factor loadings of underlying stocks. Cross‐sectionally, these reductions are negatively related to the contemporaneous price drifts, suggesting the price drifts may be a sample‐specific result of chance. Our results underscore the importance of testing for changes in risk loadings in future long‐term event studies.