Identifying the relative importance of stock characteristics

There is no consensus in the literature as to which stock characteristic best explains returns. In this study, we employ a novel econometric approach better suited than the traditional characteristic sorting method to answer this question for the UK market. We evaluate the relative explanatory power of market, size, momentum, volatility, liquidity and book-to-market factors in a semiparametric characteristic-based factor model which does not require constructing characteristic portfolios. We find that momentum is the most important factor and liquidity is the least important based on their relative contribution to the fit of the model and the proportion of sample months for which factor returns are significant. Overall, this study provides strong evidence to support that the momentum characteristic can best explain stock returns in the UK market. The econometric approach employed in this study is a novel way to assess relevant investment risk in international financial markets outside U.S. Moreover, multinational institutions and investors can use this approach to identify regional factors in order to diversify their portfolios.

The direction of media influence: Real-estate news and the stock market

This paper uses a novel identification strategy to test the influence of news media on the stock market. Because the stock market does not impact the media coverage of the housing market, a relationship between real-estate news and shares of companies engaged in the housing market is attributable media influence. I find that the content of reporting exhibits a significant relationship with stock returns, and the amount of news with the number of trades. These relationships exist even after controlling for known risk factors, housing market performance and intra-week correlation. This finding is consistent with the function of the media as a source of information and sentiment in financial markets.

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific step (risk assessment), and ends with a political decision-making step (risk management); and in the United States (US) it starts with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision-making step. We investigated trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU (traders in these commodities). Results show that from 1996-2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion-time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time: Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998-2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

The Adaptiveness in Stock Markets: Testing the Stylized Facts in the DAX 30

By testing a simple asset pricing model of heterogeneous agents to characterize the power-law behavior of the DAX 30 from 1975 to 2007, we provide supporting evidence on empirical findings that investors and fund managers use combinations of fixed and switching strategies based on fundamental and technical analysis when making investment decisions. By conducting econometric analysis via Monte Carlo simulations, we show that the autocorrelation patterns, the estimates of the power-law decay indices, (FI)GARCH parameters, and tail index of the model match closely the corresponding estimates for the DAX 30. A mechanism analysis based on the calibrated model provides further insights into the explanatory power of heterogeneous agent models.

European Union Biomedical Research Law and Policy and Citizen Science

In this chapter I focus on the EU's emerging biomedical research law and policy and examine the development of citizen science in this setting. The chapter argues that while what the analysis reveals might not be specific to the EU, attention to this organisation underlines important but often overlooked aspects of citizen science. That is, citizen science is (being) made less about promoting substantive involvement by citizens in the fashioning of biomedical trajectories and their empowerment as participants that pursue aims defined by themselves rather than others. Instead citizen science is underpinned by a more longstanding EU level approach to participation in science-based issues that sees it being harnessed, shaped and directed towards supporting the production and legitimation of organisational identity and sociotechnical order (in this case the EU’s). Within biomedical research law and policy citizen science might therefore be expected to support market-optimised biomedical futures and a dynamic internal market and economy. Citizen science is thereby implicated in the delineation of the boundaries of responsibility and accountability (and blame) for the (non-)realisation of public health priorities and objectives. In this way law and policy on participation and citizen science might support current research trajectories that do not serve all health needs.