This article shows that changes in the tone of central bank communication have a significant effect on asset prices. Tone captures how the central bank frames economic fundamentals and its monetary policy. A positive tone surprise is associated with increases in stock prices and interest rates, whereas credit spreads and volatility risk premia decrease. These tone effects are robust to controlling for policy actions as well as for conventional measures of monetary policy shocks. Our results suggest that communication tone is a powerful instrument of monetary policy, which affects risk premia embedded in asset prices.

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a laboratory, we show that asset markets assign a time-varying price to firms’ disaster risk exposure. The cross-section of stock returns reflected firms’ different exposure to the pandemic, as measured by their vulnerability to social distancing. As predicted by theory, realized and expected return differentials moved in opposite directions, initially widening and then narrowing. When inferred from market outcomes, firm resilience correlates mainly with exposure to social distancing: vulnerability to social distancing is priced in changes of firms’ expected returns, while measures of financial and environmental resilience are not.

We study the properties of foreign exchange risk premiums that can explain the forward bias puzzle, defined as the tendency of high-interest rate currencies to appreciate rather than depreciate. These risk premiums arise endogenously from the no-arbitrage condition relating the term structure of interest rates and exchange rates. Estimating affine (multi-currency) term structure models reveals a noticeable tradeoff between matching depreciation rates and accuracy in pricing bonds. Risk premiums implied by our global affine model generate unbiased predictions for currency excess returns and are closely related to global risk aversion, the business cycle, and traditional exchange rate fundamentals.

ABSTRACT This paper presents empirical evidence that the maturity structure of financial leverage affects the cross‐section of equity returns. We find that short‐term leverage is associated with a positive premium, whereas long‐term leverage is not. The premium for short‐term compared to long‐term leverage reflects higher exposure of equity to systematic risk. To rationalize our findings, we show that the same patterns emerge in a model of debt rollover risk with endogenous leverage and debt maturity choice. Our results suggest that analyses of leverage effects in asset prices and corporate financial applications should account for the maturity structure of debt.

ABSTRACT We derive a formula for the expected return on a stock in terms of the risk‐neutral variance of the market and the stock's excess risk‐neutral variance relative to that of the average stock. These quantities can be computed from index and stock option prices; the formula has no free parameters. The theory performs well empirically both in and out of sample. Our results suggest that there is considerably more variation in expected returns, over time and across stocks, than has previously been acknowledged.

ABSTRACT We explore the link between a firm's stock returns and credit risk using a simple insight from structural models following Merton ( ): risk premia on equity and credit instruments are related because all claims on assets must earn the same compensation per unit of risk. Consistent with theory, we find that firms' stock returns increase with credit risk premia estimated from CDS spreads. Credit risk premia contain information not captured by physical or risk‐neutral default probabilities alone. This sheds new light on the “distress puzzle”—the lack of a positive relation between equity returns and default probabilities—reported in previous studies.

ABSTRACT This paper shows that low‐risk anomalies in the capital asset pricing model and in traditional factor models arise when investors require compensation for coskewness risk. Empirically, we find that option‐implied ex ante skewness is strongly related to ex post residual coskewness, which allows us to construct coskewness factor‐mimicking portfolios. Controlling for skewness renders the alphas of betting‐against‐beta and betting‐against‐volatility insignificant. We also show that the returns of beta‐ and volatility‐sorted portfolios are driven largely by a single principal component, which in turn is explained largely by skewness.