Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,352

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Differences of Opinion, Short-Sales Constraints, and Market Crashes

Hong, Harrison, Stein, Jeremy C.·2003·Review of Financial Studies

Abstract

We develop a theory of market crashes based on differences of opinion among investors. Because of short-sales constraints, bearish investors do not initially participate in the market and their information is not revealed in prices. However, if other previously bullish investors bail out of the market, the originally bearish group may become the marginal “support buyers,” and more will be learned about their signals. Thus accumulated hidden information comes out during market declines. The model explains a variety of stylized facts about crashes and also makes a distinctive new prediction—that returns will be more negatively skewed conditional on high trading volume.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rfs/hhg006

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,352

Metadata

Authors
Hong, H., & Stein, J. C.
Venue
Review of Financial Studies
Published
2003-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
487-525
ISSN
  • 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7368
OpenAlex
W1970037760
Cited by
1,352
References
0
FWCI
56.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differences of Opinion, Short-Sales Constraints, and Market Crashes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rfs/hhg006
The paper
Hong, H., & Stein, J. C. (2003). Differences of Opinion, Short-Sales Constraints, and Market Crashes. Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhg006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.