G12 Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (19)
- Article (3)
Language
- English (22)
Has Fulltext
- yes (22)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (22)
Keywords
- Asset Pricing (2)
- ESG (2)
- Empirical Asset Pricing (2)
- Affordability crisis (1)
- Amplification (1)
- Annuities (1)
- Asset Price Bubbles (1)
- Asset prices (1)
- Asset pricing (1)
- Banking Supervision (1)
Cross-predictability denotes the fact that some assets can predict other assets' returns. I propose a novel performance-based measure that disentangles the economic value of cross-predictability into two components: the predictive power of one asset's signal for other assets' returns (cross-predictive signals) and the amount of an asset's return explained by other assets' signals (cross-predicted returns). Empirically, the latter component dominates the former in the overall cross-prediction effects. In the crosssection, cross-predictability gravitates towards small firms that are strongly mispriced and difficult to arbitrage, while it becomes more difficult to cross-predict returns when market capitalization and book-to-market ratio rise.
When estimating misspecified linear factor models for the cross-section of expected returns using GMM, the explanatory power of these models can be spuriously high when the estimated factor means are allowed to deviate substantially from the sample averages. In fact, by shifting the weights on the moment conditions, any level of cross-sectional fit can be attained. The mathematically correct global minimum of the GMM objective function can be obtained at a parameter vector that is far from the true parameters of the data-generating process. This property is not restricted to small samples, but rather holds in population. It is a feature of the GMM estimation design and applies to both strong and weak factors, as well as to all types of test assets.
This paper studies the impact of banks’ dividend restrictions on the behavior of their institutional investors. Using an identification strategy that relies on the within investor variation and a difference in difference setup, I find that funds permanently decrease their ownership shares at treated banks during the 2020 dividend restrictions in the Eurozone and even exit treated banks’ stocks. Using data before the intro- duction of the ban reveals a positive relationship between fund ownership and banks’ dividend yield, highlighting again the importance of dividends for European banks’ fund investors. This reaction also has pricing implications since there is a negative relationship between the dividend restriction announcement day cumulative abnormal returns and the percentage of fund owners per bank.
We develop a quantity-driven general equilibrium model that integrates the term structure of interest rates with the repurchase agreements (repo) market to shed light on the com-bined effects of quantitative easing (QE) on the bond and money markets. We characterize in closed form the endogenous dynamic interaction between bond prices and repo rates, and show (i) that repo specialness dampens the impact of any given quantity of asset pur-chases due to QE on the slope of the term structure and (ii) that bond scarcity resulting from QE increases repo specialness, thus strengthening the local supply channel of QE.
We analyze the performance of marketplace lending using loan cash flow data from the largest platform, Lending Club. We find substantial risk-adjusted performance of about 40 basis points per month for the entire loan portfolio. Other loan portfolios grouped by risk category have similar risk-adjusted performance. We show that characteristics of the local bank sector for each loan, such as concentration of deposits and the presence of national banks, are related to the performance of loans. Thus, marketplace lending has the potential to finance a growing share of the consumer credit market in the absence of a competitive response from the traditional incumbents.
We find that high macroeconomic uncertainty is associated with greater accumulation of physical capital, despite a reduction in investment and valuations. To reconcile this puzzling evidence, we show that uncertainty predicts lower depreciation and utilization of existing capital, which dominates the investment slowdown. Motivated by these dynamics, we develop a quantitative production-based model in which firms implement precautionary savings through reducing utilization rather than raising invest-ment. Through this novel intensive-margin mechanism, uncertainty shocks command a quarter of the equity premium in general equilibrium, while flexibility in utilization adjustments helps explain uncertainty risk exposures in the cross-section of industry returns.
We examine whether the uncertainty related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) regulation developments is reflected in asset prices. We proxy the sensitivity of firms to ESG regulation uncertainty by the disparity across the components of their ESG ratings. Firms with high ESG disparity have a higher option-implied cost of protection against downside tail risk. The impact of the misalignment across the different dimensions of the ESG score is distinct from that of ESG score level itself. Aggregate downside risk bears a negative price for firms with low ESG disparity.
Industry classification groups firms into finer partitions to help investments and empirical analysis. To overcome the well-documented limitations of existing industry definitions, like their stale nature and coarse categories for firms with multiple operations, we employ a clustering approach on 69 firm characteristics and allocate companies to novel economic sectors maximizing the within-group explained variation. Such sectors are dynamic yet stable, and represent a superior investment set compared to standard classification schemes for portfolio optimization and for trading strategies based on within-industry mean-reversion, which give rise to a latent risk factor significantly priced in the cross-section. We provide a new metric to quantify feature importance for clustering methods, finding that size drives differences across classical industries while book-to-market and financial liquidity variables matter for clustering-based sectors.
Investors' return expectations are pivotal in stock markets, but the reasoning behind these expectations remains a black box for economists. This paper sheds light on economic agents' mental models -- their subjective understanding -- of the stock market, drawing on surveys with the US general population, US retail investors, US financial professionals, and academic experts. Respondents make return forecasts in scenarios describing stale news about the future earnings streams of companies, and we collect rich data on respondents' reasoning. We document three main results. First, inference from stale news is rare among academic experts but common among households and financial professionals, who believe that stale good news lead to persistently higher expected returns in the future. Second, while experts refer to the notion of market efficiency to explain their forecasts, households and financial professionals reveal a neglect of equilibrium forces. They naively equate higher future earnings with higher future returns, neglecting the offsetting effect of endogenous price adjustments. Third, a series of experimental interventions demonstrate that these naive forecasts do not result from inattention to trading or price responses but reflect a gap in respondents' mental models -- a fundamental unfamiliarity with the concept of equilibrium.
Standard applications of the consumption-based asset pricing model assume that goods and services within the nondurable consumption bundle are substitutes. We estimate substitution elasticities between different consumption bundles and show that households cannot substitute energy consumption by consumption of other nondurables. As a consequence, energy consumption affects the pricing function as a separate factor. Variation in energy consumption betas explains a large part of the premia related to value, investment, and operating profitability. For example, value stocks are typically more energy-intensive than growth stocks and thus riskier, since they suffer more from the oil supply shocks that also affect households.