Manchester Unitedの次期監督をめぐる(非)効率的市場

2014年4月22日にManchester UnitedのDavid Moyes監督が解任されました。株価の変動 (NYSE: MANU)は,次の通りです。

after April 22, 2014 (David Moyes was sacked)

次期監督候補についてのブックメーカーのオッズを見ると,ブックメーカーによってオッズが結構違うことが明らかです。

ただ,情報に市場が反応しているのは,わかります。

また,誰が監督になって欲しいかというファンの希望と,オッズにも乖離があって,それも興味深いです。

Who do you want as the next Man United boss?

via Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, BBC Sports, Mirror

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., — U.S. — (2014) (3)—口頭弁論

Halliburton IIの口頭弁論がありました。幾つかブログの記事がありましたが,Fisch教授のコメントを引用します。

Two big surprises. First, the Justices devoted very little attention to the question of whether Basic should be overruled. … Although Aaron Streett led off aggressively in his argument, … the Justices did not seem to have much appetite for discussing this issue. …

The second major surprise was the degree of attention that the Justices devoted to question II in the petition for cert. The Justices seemed quite taken by the position advocated by Professors Prichard and Henderson (which they termed the “law professors’ position) (too bad for the rest of us law professors) that plaintiffs be required to prove price impact, at the class certification stage, through an event study. …

Two points from the oral argument were particularly troubling. First, as Stewart’s answer demonstrated, the argument was permeated with a limited understanding of how event studies work and the complexities involved in using an event study to measure price impact, particularly in the case of misrepresentations that falsely confirm continued good news. …

Second, Streett suggested and appeared to persuade the Justices that class certification was the end of the game – that if a class is certified, it is almost a sure win or an inevitable settlement because of the in terrorem effect of class actions. … Similarly none of the lawyers focused on why price impact must be litigated at class certification or at trial—why not, alternatively, in the context of a motion for summary judgment—although Justice Ginsberg asked what difference it made at what stage price impact is litigated.

〔2014年3月9日追記〕口頭弁論を聞きました。第一に,Basic判決を覆すかという点について,Roberts首席裁判官の立場を知りたかったのですが,わかりませんでした。どちらかと言うと,middle groundに近いように聞こえましたが,予断を許しません。第二に,リベラル派の4人の裁判官は,certification stageでの立証事項という問題に気づいています。これについても,Roberts首席裁判官の立場を知りたかったのですが,わかりませんでした。

via D&O Diary, SCOTUS Transcript, Oyez, Conglomerate, TheCorporateCounsel.net

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., — U.S. — (2014) (2)

市場に対する詐欺理論が争われているHalliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.事件について,関連する資料を幾つか集めてみます。

amicus briefsも多く提出されています。主だった所だと,次のものでしょうか。

  • Securities Law Professors— Robert P. Bartlett, III, Barbara Black, James D. Cox, James Fanto, Jill E. Fisch, Theresa A. Gabaldon, Erik F. Gerding, Thomas Lee Hazen, Michael J. Kaufman, Donald C. Langevoort, Ann M. Lipton, Donna M. Nagy James Park, Frank Partnoy, Hillary A. Sale, Randall S. Thomas, David H. Webber, Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr.
  • Civl Law Professors—Stephen B. Burbank, Robert H. Klonoff, David Marcus, Arthur R. Miller, Tobias Barrington Wolff
  • Financial Economists—Sanjai Bhagat, John H. Cochrane, Darrell Duffie, Eugene Fama, S.P. Kothari, Reinier H. Kraakman, Andrew Lo, Burton G. Malkiel, Jeffry M. Netter, Thomas Philippon, Jay R. Ritter, Richard Roll, David L. Yermack.
  • Securities Law Professors—Adam C. Pritchard, M. Todd Henderson
  • Former SEC Officials and Securities Law Professors—Paul S. Atkins, Stephen M. Bainbridge, Brian G. Cartwright, Richard A. Epstein, Allen Ferrell, Edward H. Fleischman, Joseph A. Grundfest, M. Todd Henderson, Simon M. Lorne, Jonathan R. Macey, Richard W. Painter, Kenneth E. Scott, Laura S. Unger, Andrew N. Vollmer

口頭弁論は,2014年3月5日の予定です。