We argue that deviations from the law of one price between futures and spot prices, known as futures-cash bases, capture important information about liquidity demand for equity market exposure in global markets. We show that bases (1) co-move with dealer and investor futures positions, (2) are contemporaneously positively correlated with spot and futures returns with the same sign, and (3) negatively predict futures and spot market returns with the same sign. These findings are consistent with a model where the futures-cash basis reflects liquidity demand that is common to futures and cash equity markets. We show persistent supply-demand imbalances for equity index exposure reflected in bases, where compensation for meeting that liquidity demand is large (5-6% annual premium).

This paper analyzes how US universities contribute to the quantity and quality of VC-backed immigrant entrepreneurship in the US. Using a novel data set that identifies immigration status and education history for the near-universe of VC-backed founders in the US, we document several interrelated facts. First, immigrants contribute disproportionately to US VC-backed entrepreneurship, accounting for approximately 20 % of VC-backed companies. More than 75 % of these immigrant entrepreneurs obtained post-secondary education in the US, which suggests that higher education represents a primary entry channel for foreign entrepreneurial talent into the country. Given these facts, we assess how universities shape both the geographic distribution and the quality of immigrant entrepreneurship. Close to 40 % of US-educated immigrants start a company in the state of their alma mater, suggesting that place of education substantially impacts immigrant entrepreneurs' startup location choice. Regarding firm quality, immigrant founders are also more likely to found financially successful and scientifically innovative startups than their US-born counterparts. Altogether, the results suggest that foreign students educated in US universities substantially contribute to local and national VC-backed entrepreneurship, thereby identifying higher education's global scope as a potential tool to attract entrepreneurial talent and encourage entrepreneurial growth.

Higher order beliefs - beliefs about others' beliefs - may be important for trading behavior and asset prices, but have received little systematic empirical examination due to challenges in measurement. We study more than twenty years of evidence from the Robert Shiller Investor Confidence surveys, which directly elicit details on individual and institutional investors' higher order beliefs about the U.S. stock market. We find that investors' higher order beliefs provide substantial motivations for non-fundamental speculation, e.g., to buy into a stock market perceived to be overvalued. Guided by the evidence, we construct a theoretical model that reveals that higher order beliefs may substantially amplify stock market fluctuations. When investors exhibit the same fundamental belief biases that they attribute to other investors, phenomena such as overreaction, momentum, and reversal can persist in equilibrium even though everybody knows about them.

A long-standing question is why asset prices sometimes underreact and sometimes overreact to news. We explore this question in currency markets. We use survey data to estimate a model featuring investors with noisy private information and extrapolative beliefs about interest rates, and find the estimated model quantitatively matches patterns of initial underreaction and delayed overreaction of currencies in response to interest rate news. The model also helps explain changes in the time-series predictability of currency returns by interest rates in recent years, the term structure of UIP deviations, and additional features of beliefs in survey data. Our results highlight the role of investors' beliefs in asset price behavior.

Sports betting markets offer a novel test distinguishing the roles of preferences and beliefs in asset prices. Analyzing two contracts on the same outcome – one where payoff risk varies with expected outcome (Moneyline) and one where it does not (Spread) – we find that preferences for lottery-like payoffs, rather than incorrect beliefs, drive the lower returns to betting on risky underdogs versus safe favorites. Drawing parallels to low-risk anomalies in financial markets, we find the magnitude of pricing effects matches those in options and equity markets, with a model of lottery preferences providing a unifying explanation.