The finance literature has shown that equity returns are predictable using past returns. This study extends that literature by examining bond return predictability. Using returns constructed from dealer bid prices, we find short- to intermediate-term reversals in investment grade corporate bond returns. These reversals are larger in the first half of the sample period and consistent with the predictions of dealer inventory cost models. This supports Jegadeesh and Titman’s [J. Financ. Intermed. 4 (1995) 116] assertion that daily, weekly, and monthly reversals in equity returns come from dealer inventory considerations, not behavioral biases. Finally, unlike equity returns, we find no evidence of momentum in bond returns.

This paper combines the use of portfolio holdings data and conditioning information to create a new performance measure. Our conditional weight-based measure has several advantages. Using conditioning information avoids biases in weight-based measures as discussed by Grinblatt and Titman (J. Business 60 (1993)). When conditioning information is used, returns-based measures face a bias if managers can trade between observation dates. The new measures avoid this interim trading bias. We use the new measures to provide fresh insights about performance in a sample of U.S. equity pension fund managers.

In this paper we examine the importance of systematic equity market factors in explaining the cross-sectional variation in yield spreads on corporate debt. Based on a sample of 1771 corporate bonds over the period from January 1985 to March 1998, we find that once the default-related variables are controlled for, bond betas or sensitivities to aggregate equity market risks have very limited explanatory power. This is in contrast to [Elton, E.J., Gruber, M.J., 2001. Explaining the rate spread on corporate bonds. Journal of Finance 56, 247–277] who find that market factors tied to expected returns are predominantly important, but who do not control for these variables (i.e. the relevant variables from structural models), possibly biasing their estimates. On the other hand, our finding that the systematic factors exhibit some limited explanatory power suggests that the standard contingent claims approach may not fully apply. This finding is consistent with previous research that bond betas are not completely irrelevant once market frictions are introduced. Overall, the evidence provides empirical support for the proposition that structural models capture important elements of corporate bond yield spread determination and equity market systematic factors are by no means predominant.