We introduce a general equilibrium model of a multi-agent, pure-exchange economy and find a set of conditions that enable us to obtain explicit closed-form solutions to the equilibrium interest rate, stock price, risk premium and stock market volatility when investors have heterogenous risk aversions. Because the market is dynamically complete, full risk sharing obtains and a representative agent can be constructed, though the risk aversion of this agent fluctuates over time with the state of the economy, as the relative wealth distribution of the individual investors changes. We show that preference heterogeneity can cause asset prices to be significantly more volatile than the underlying dividends and that it can lead to leverage-like effects in volatility, in the sense that volatility increases after stock-market declines.

Abstract Deviations from put-call parity contain information about future stock returns. Using the difference in implied volatility between pairs of call and put options to measure these deviations, we find that stocks with relatively expensive calls outperform stocks with relatively expensive puts by 50 basis points per week. We find both positive abnormal performance in stocks with relatively expensive calls and negative abnormal performance in stocks with relatively expensive puts, which cannot be explained by short sale constraints. Rebate rates from the stock lending market directly confirm that our findings are not driven by stocks that are hard to borrow. The degree of predictability is larger when option liquidity is high and stock liquidity low, while there is little predictability when the opposite is true. Controlling for size, option prices are more likely to deviate from strict put-call parity when underlying stocks face more information risk. The degree of predictability decreases over the sample period. Our results are consistent with mispricing during the earlier years of the study, with a gradual reduction of the mispricing over time.

Abstract In December 2006, the SEC issued new rules requiring enhanced disclosure by public U.S. firms of perquisites granted to their executives. The rules applied to perquisites granted in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter. Because the rules were implemented quickly, the perks disclosed for 2006 reflect the arrangements firms made under prior disclosure rules: firms could not revise perks to reflect the new rules until 2007. For firms that disclose for the first time in 2006, we predict and find that perks decrease in 2007, reflecting both the costs of increased disclosure and enhanced monitoring. This decrease in perks is offset by higher levels of non‐perk compensation, however. We also predict and find that the effect of perk disclosure by formerly non‐disclosing firms in 2006 leads to higher perks in 2007 for firms that were disclosing perks prior to the rule change.

Abstract We introduce a new approach to estimating long-term aggregate discount rates using the cross section of earnings and book values to explain current stock prices and extract expected market returns. The proposed discount rate measure is countercyclical. Shocks to it account for nearly half of historical market return variation; in contrast, shocks to other discount rate measures account for no more than 2%. It dominates other measures in explaining time-series variation in returns on duration-sorted portfolios and delivers out-of-sample predictability that exceeds that afforded by other expected return measures and predictive variables. It also performs well in international equity markets.

Abstract We use a unique database on ownership stakes of equity mutual fund directors to analyze whether the directors’ incentive structure is related to fund performance. Ownership of both independent and nonindependent directors plays an economically and statistically significant role. Funds in which directors have low ownership, or “skin in the game,” significantly underperform. We posit two economic mechanisms to explain this relation. First, lack of ownership could indicate a director’s lack of alignment with fund shareholder interests. Second, directors may have superior private information on future performance. We find evidence in support of the first and against the second mechanism.

This paper introduces measures of volatility and jump risk that are based on individual stock options to explain credit spreads on corporate bonds. Implied volatilities of individual options are shown to contain useful information for credit spreads and improve on historical volatilities when explaining the cross-sectional and time-series variation in a panel of corporate bond spreads. Both the level of individual implied volatilities and (to a lesser extent) the implied-volatility skew matter for credit spreads. Detailed principal component analysis shows that a large part of the time-series variation in credit spreads can be explained in this way.

ABSTRACT We examine the pricing of both aggregate jump and volatility risk in the cross‐section of stock returns by constructing investable option trading strategies that load on one factor but are orthogonal to the other. Both aggregate jump and volatility risk help explain variation in expected returns. Consistent with theory, stocks with high sensitivities to jump and volatility risk have low expected returns. Both can be measured separately and are important economically, with a two‐standard‐deviation increase in jump (volatility) factor loadings associated with a 3.5% to 5.1% (2.7% to 2.9%) drop in expected annual stock returns.