Long-Run Risk (LRR) model which emphasizes the role of long-run risks, that is, low-frequency movements in consumption growth rates and volatility, in accounting for a wide-range of asset pricing puzzles. In this article we present a generalized LRR model, which allows us to study the role of cyclical fluctuations and macroeconomic-crisis on asset prices and expected returns. The Bansal and Yaron (2004) LRR model contains (i) a persistent expected consumption growth component, (ii) long-run variation in consumption volatility, and (iii) preference for early resolution of uncertainty. To evaluate the role of cyclical risks, we incorporate a cyclical component in consumption growth — this component is stationary in levels. To study financial market crisis, we also entertain jumps in consumption growth and consumptionvolatility. We find that the magnitude of risk compensation for cyclical risks in consumption critically depends on the magnitude of the inter-temporal elasticity of substitution (IES). When the IES is larger than one, cyclical risks carry a very small risk-premium and the compensation for long-run risks is large. When IES is close to zero, the risk compensation for cyclical risks is large, however, in this case the risk-free rate is implausibly high (in excess of 10 percent). Given this, it seems unlikely that the compensation for cyclical risk is of economically significant magnitude. This implication is also consistent with Robert E. Jr. Lucas (1987), who argues that economic costs of transient shocks are small and those for trend shocks are large. Moreover, Ravi Bansal, Robert F. Dittmar and Dana Kiku (2009) provide evidence from equity markets that the compensation for long-run risks is large and that for cyclical risk is quite small.

We document a new stylized fact, that the relationship between the volatility of oil futures prices and the slope of the forward curve is nonmonotone and has a V‐shape. This pattern cannot be generated by standard models that emphasize storage. We develop an equilibrium model of oil production in which investment is irreversible and capacity constrained. Investment constraints affect firms' investment decisions and imply that the supply elasticity changes over time. Since demand shocks must be absorbed by changes in prices or changes in supply, time‐varying supply elasticity results in time‐varying volatility of futures prices. Estimating this model, we show it is quantitatively consistent with the V‐shape relationship between the volatility of futures prices and the slope of the forward curve.

How Important Are Idiosyncratic Shocks? Evidence from Labor Supply by Kjetil Storesletten, Chris I. Telmer and Amir Yaron. Published in volume 91, issue 2, pages 413-417 of American Economic Review, May 2001

Is individual labor income more risky in recessions? This is a difficult question to answer because existing panel data sets are so short. To address this problem, we develop a generalized method of moments estimator that conditions on the macroeconomic history that each member of the panel has experienced. Variation in the cross‐sectional variance between households with differing macroeconomic histories allows us to incorporate business cycle information dating back to 1930, even though our data do not begin until 1968. We implement this estimator using household‐level labor earnings data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. We estimate that idiosyncratic risk is (i) highly persistent, with an annual autocorrelation coefficient of 0.95, and (ii) strongly countercyclical, with a conditional standard deviation that increases by 75 percent (from 0.12 to 0.21) as the macroeconomy moves from peak to trough.

Does macroeconomic uncertainty increase or decrease aggregate growth and asset prices? To address this question, we decompose aggregate uncertainty into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ volatility components, associated with positive and negative innovations to macroeconomic growth. We document that in line with our theoretical framework, these two uncertainties have opposite impact on aggregate growth and asset prices. Good uncertainty predicts an increase in future economic activity, such as consumption, output, and investment, and is positively related to valuation ratios, while bad uncertainty forecasts a decline in economic growth and depresses asset prices. Further, the market price of risk and equity beta of good uncertainty are positive, while negative for bad uncertainty. Hence, both uncertainty risks contribute positively to risk premia, and help explain the cross-section of expected returns beyond cash flow risk.

We investigate the time variability of abnormal returns from socially responsible investing (SRI). Using portfolio regressions and event studies on multiple data sources, including analyst ratings, firm announcements, and realized incidents, we find that highly rated SRI stocks outperform lowly rated SRI stocks during good economic times, for example, periods with high market valuations or aggregate consumption, but underperform during bad times, such as recessions. This variation in abnormal returns of high-SR stocks vis-à-vis low SR stocks is consistent with a wealth-dependent investor preference for SR stocks that leads to an increased (decreased) demand for SRI during good (bad) times.

We use a production-based asset pricing model to investigate whether financing constraints are quantitatively important for the cross-section of returns. Specifically, we use GMM to explore the stochastic Euler equation imposed on returns by optimal investment. Our methods can identify the impact of financial frictions on the stochastic discount factor with cyclical variations in cost of external funds. We find that financing frictions provide a common factor that improves the pricing of cross-sectional returns. Moreover, the shadow cost of external funds exhibits strong procyclical variation, so that financial frictions are more important in relatively good economic conditions.

We estimate a regime-switching model for the equity term structure with Bayesian methods. Our approach accounts for the data sample being unrepresentative of the population distribution of regimes. We find that (i) the term structure of expected equity dividend strip returns is downward sloping in recessions and upward sloping in expansions, and (ii) the unconditional term structure of expected equity returns is positively sloped. Our estimation shows that the sample unrepresentativeness induces a downward bias in the estimate of the equity term structure slope. We present a regime-switching consumption-based asset-pricing model that matches the empirical findings.

We use market data on corporate bonds and equities to measure the value of U.S. corporate assets and their payouts to investors. In contrast to equity dividends, total corporate payouts are highly volatile, turn negative when corporations raise capital, and are acyclical. At the same time, corporate asset returns are similar to returns on equity, and both are exposed to fluctuations in economic growth. To reconcile this evidence, we argue that acyclical but volatile net repurchases mask the exposure of total payouts' cash components to economic growth risks. We develop an asset pricing framework to quantitatively illustrate this economic channel.

How important are volatility fluctuations for asset prices and the macroeconomy? We find that an increase in macroeconomic volatility is associated with an increase in discount rates and a decline in consumption. We develop a framework in which cash flow, discount rate, and volatility risks determine risk premia and show that volatility plays a significant role in explaining the joint dynamics of returns to human capital and equity. Volatility risk carries a sizable positive risk premium and helps account for the cross section of expected returns. Our evidence demonstrates that volatility is important for understanding expected returns and macroeconomic fluctuations.