This paper uses the pricing models of Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1981), Richard and Sundaresan (1981), and French (1982) to examine the relation between futures and forward prices for copper and silver. There are significant differences between these prices. The average differences are generally consistent with the predictions of the futures and forward price models. However, these models are not helpful in describing intra-sample variations in the futures-forward price differences. This failure is apparently caused by measurement errors in both the price differences and in the explanatory variables.

This paper examines two alternative models of the process generating stock returns. Under the calendar time hypothesis, the process operates continuously and the expected return for Monday is three times the expected return for other days of the week. Under the trading time hypothesis, returns are generated only during active trading and the expected return is the same for each day of the week. During most of the period studied, from 1953 through 1977, the daily returns to the Standard and Poor's composite portfolio are inconsistent with both models. Although the average return for the other four days of the week was positive, the average for Monday was significantly negative during each of five-year subperiods.

Abstract Value premiums, which we define as value portfolio returns in excess of market portfolio returns, are on average much lower in the second half of the July 1963–June 2019 period. But the high volatility of monthly premiums prevents us from rejecting the hypothesis that expected premiums are the same in both halves of the sample. Regressions that forecast value premiums with book-to-market ratios in excess of market (BM–BMM) produce more reliable evidence of second-half declines in expected value premiums, but only if we assume the regression coefficients are constant during the sample period. Received: January 21, 2020; editorial decision: July 21, 2020; Editor: Jeffrey Pontiff.

We use bootstrap simulations to examine the properties of long-horizon U.S. stock market returns. We document the rate at which continuously compounded market returns converge toward normal distributions as we extend the horizon from 1 month to 30 years, and the rate at which dollar payoffs converge toward lognormal. We also verify that, though largely irrelevant at short horizons, uncertainty about the expected market return has a substantial impact on uncertainty about long-horizon payoffs. Received date May 18, 2017; Accepted date December 26, 2017 By Editor Raman Uppal

ABSTRACT I compare the fees, expenses, and trading costs society pays to invest in the U.S. stock market with an estimate of what would be paid if everyone invested passively. Averaging over 1980–2006, I find investors spend 0.67% of the aggregate value of the market each year searching for superior returns. Society's capitalized cost of price discovery is at least 10% of the current market cap. Under reasonable assumptions, the typical investor would increase his average annual return by 67 basis points over the 1980–2006 period if he switched to a passive market portfolio.

Asset prices are much more volatile during exchange trading hours than during non-trading hours. This paper considers three explanations for this phenomenon: (1) volatility is caused by public information which is more likely to arrive during normal business hours; (2) volatility is caused by private information which affects prices when informed investors trade; and (3) volatility is caused by pricing errors that occur during trading. Although a significant fraction of the daily variance is caused by mispricing, the behavior of returns around exchange holidays suggests that private information is the principle factor behind high trading-time variances.

A five-factor model directed at capturing the size, value, profitability, and investment patterns in average stock returns performs better than the three-factor model of Fama and French (FF, 1993). The five-factor model׳s main problem is its failure to capture the low average returns on small stocks whose returns behave like those of firms that invest a lot despite low profitability. The model׳s performance is not sensitive to the way its factors are defined. With the addition of profitability and investment factors, the value factor of the FF three-factor model becomes redundant for describing average returns in the sample we examine.

In the four regions (North America, Europe, Japan, and Asia Pacific) we examine, there are value premiums in average stock returns that, except for Japan, decrease with size. Except for Japan, there is return momentum everywhere, and spreads in average momentum returns also decrease from smaller to bigger stocks. We test whether empirical asset pricing models capture the value and momentum patterns in international average returns and whether asset pricing seems to be integrated across the four regions. Integrated pricing across regions does not get strong support in our tests. For three regions (North America, Europe, and Japan), local models that use local explanatory returns provide passable descriptions of local average returns for portfolios formed on size and value versus growth. Even local models are less successful in tests on portfolios formed on size and momentum.