Does Shareholder Litigation Risk Cause Public Firms to Delist? Evidence from Securities Class Action Lawsuits

Using three exogenous shocks to ex ante litigation risk, including federal judge ideology and two influential judicial precedents, we find that lower shareholder litigation risk reduces a firm’s propensity to delist from the U.S. stock markets. The effect is at least partially driven by indirect costs of litigation and that being a private firm can significantly reduce the threat of litigation. Overall, the results suggest that mitigating excessive litigation costs for public firms is crucial to ensure the continued vibrancy of the U.S. stock market

The effect of global political risk on stock returns: a cross-sectional and a time-series analysis

Given the rise of political uncertainty, it is important to develop an understanding of their effect on financial markets. We use a political risk measure to calculate their effect on stock markets based on a political risk measure. The political risk proxy is related to cross-country returns and two portfolios: one with upside and other with downside political risk. Time-series and cross-sectional analysis are conducted to measure the effectiveness of this measure on global markets. The results evidence that an increase in global political risk is negatively correlated with an upside portfolio containing global stock returns

Pluralism about Knowledge

In this paper I consider the prospects for pluralism about knowledge, that is, the view that there is a plurality of knowledge relations. After a brief overview of some views that entail a sort of pluralism about knowledge, I focus on a particular kind of knowledge pluralism I call standards pluralism. Put roughly, standards pluralism is the view that one never knows anything simpliciter. Rather, one knows by this-or-that epistemic standard. Because there is a plurality of epistemic standards, there is a plurality of knowledge relations. In §1 I argue that one can construct an impressive case for standards pluralism. In §2 I clarify the relationship between standards pluralism, epistemic contextualism and epistemic relativism. In §3 I argue that standards pluralism faces a serious objection. The gist of the objection is that standards pluralism is incompatible with plausible claims about the normative role of knowledge. In §4 I finish by sketching the form that a standards pluralist response to this objection might take

Future Contingents and the Logic of Temporal Omniscience

At least since Aristotle’s famous 'sea-battle' passages in On Interpretation 9, some substantial minority of philosophers has been attracted to the doctrine of the open future--the doctrine that future contingent statements are not true. But, prima facie, such views seem inconsistent with the following intuition: if something has happened, then (looking back) it was the case that it would happen. How can it be that, looking forwards, it isn’t true that there will be a sea battle, while also being true that, looking backwards, it was the case that there would be a sea battle? This tension forms, in large part, what might be called the problem of future contingents. A dominant trend in temporal logic and semantic theorizing about future contingents seeks to validate both intuitions. Theorists in this tradition--including some interpretations of Aristotle, but paradigmatically, Thomason (1970), as well as more recent developments in Belnap, et. al (2001) and MacFarlane (2003, 2014)--have argued that the apparent tension between the intuitions is in fact merely apparent. In short, such theorists seek to maintain both of the following two theses: (i) the open future: Future contingents are not true, and (ii) retro-closure: From the fact that something is true, it follows that it was the case that it would be true. It is well-known that reflection on the problem of future contingents has in many ways been inspired by importantly parallel issues regarding divine foreknowledge and indeterminism. In this paper, we take up this perspective, and ask what accepting both the open future and retro-closure predicts about omniscience. When we theorize about a perfect knower, we are theorizing about what an ideal agent ought to believe. Our contention is that there isn’t an acceptable view of ideally rational belief given the assumptions of the open future and retro-closure, and thus this casts doubt on the conjunction of those assumptions

The Economy?s Influence onVoters? Gubernatorial Choice

This study looks specifically at the 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial elections and tries to break down the components that voters consider when choosing a governor. First, the governor?s role in state and national politics is analyzed along with the similarities and differences of the position from that of the president. Next, past studies on voters? gubernatorial choice are considered, separating the different variables used and also examining the multiple models employed to view the data. After detailed inspection of the different aspects to take into account when looking at the economy and governor elections, a unique model is created that is thought to best capture the economy?s influence. The findings show that 1994 elections more so than 1998 elections are influenced by the economy. Specifically influencing voters? gubernatorial choice are per capita personal income and prospective personal finances. Finally, interpretation of the results and recommendations for future studies are presented

Technology and Trading

A panel of experts discuss technology and trading. Special Track Session for the 2nd Annual UT PhD Symposium with: -Gregg Berman, Citadel Securities; -Jonathan Brogaard, U. Utah; -Peter Dixon, U.S. SEC; -Jonathan Sokobin, FINRA (moderator)Salem Cente