Knowledge that Transforms

This paper re-examines the effects of nominal contracts on the relationship between unanticipated inflation and individual stock's rate of return. This study differs in three main ways from previous research. First, announced inflation data are used to examine the effects of unanticipated inflation. Second, a different specification is used to obtain more efficient estimates. Third, additional nominal contracts are considered. The empirical results indicate that time-varying firm characteristics related to inflation predominately determine the effect of unanticipated inflation on a stock's rate of return. A firm's debt-equity ratio appears to be particularly important in determining the response.

ABSTRACT This paper re‐examines the effects of nominal contracts on the relationship between unanticipated inflation and an individual stock's rate of return. This study differs in three main ways from previous research. First, announced inflation data are used to examine the effects of unanticipated inflation. Second, a different specification is used to obtain more efficient estimates. Third, additional nominal contracts are considered. The empirical results indicate that time‐varying firm characteristics related to inflation predominately determine the effect of unanticipated inflation on a stock's rate of return. A firm's debt‐equity ratio appears to be particularly important in determining the response.

This is a summary and interpretation of some of the literature on stock price volatility that was stimulated by Leroy and Porter 28 and Shiller 40. It appears that neither small-sample bias, rational bubbles nor some standard models for expected returns adequately explain stock price volatility. This suggests a role for some nonstandard models for expected returns. One possibility is a “fads” model in which noise trading by naive investors is important. At present, however, there is little direct evidence that such fads play a significant role in stock price determination.

ABSTRACT This article generalizes the single‐period linear‐programming bounds on option prices by allowing for a finite number of revision opportunities. It is shown that, in an incomplete market, the bounds on option prices can be derived using a modified binomial option‐pricing model. Tighter bounds are developed under more restrictive assumptions on probabilities and risk aversion. For this case the upper bounds are shown to coincide with the upper bounds derived by Perrakis, while the lower bounds are shown to be tighter.

ABSTRACT In a recent article, Black [1] introduces a type of trading that he terms noise trading. He asserts that noise trading, which he defines as trading on noise as if it were information, must be a significant factor in securities markets. However, he does not provide an explanation of why any investors would rationally want to engage in noise trading. The goal of this paper is to provide such an explanation for one type of investor, managers of investment funds. As shown here, the incentive for a manager to engage in noise trading arises because of the positive signal that the level of the manager's trading provides about his or her ability to collect private information concerning current and potential investments. If the manager's compensation is directly related to investors' perceptions of his or her ability, the manager will then trade more frequently than is justified on the basis of his or her private information. In addition to providing this explanation for noise trading, the results of this analysis may also be useful for further empirical exploration of the relation between investment fund portfolio turnover and subsequent performance.

ABSTRACT Long historical averages of real earnings help forecast present values of future real dividends. With aggregate U.S. stock market data (1871–1986), a vector‐autoregressive forecast of the present value of future dividends is, for each year, roughly a weighted average of moving‐average earnings and current real price, with between two thirds and three fourths of the weight on the earnings measure. We develop the implications of this for the present‐value model of stock prices and for recent results that long‐horizon stock returns are highly forecastable.

ABSTRACT This paper develops a measure of execution costs (market impact) of transactions on the NYSE. The measure is the volume‐weighted average price over the trading day. It yields results that are less biased than measures that use single prices, such as closes. The paper then applies this measure to a data set containing more than 14,000 actual trades. We show that total transaction costs, commission plus market impact costs, average twenty‐three basis points of principal value for our sample. Commission costs, averaging eighteen basis points, are considerably higher than execution costs, which average five basis points. They vary slightly across brokers and significantly across money managers. Though brokers do not incur consistently high or low transaction costs, money managers experience persistently high or lost costs. Finally, the paper explores the possible tradeoff between commission expenditures and market impact costs. Paying higher commissions does not yield commensurately lower execution costs, even after adjusting for trade difficulty. We cannot determine whether other valuable brokerage services are being purchased with higher commission payments or whether some money managers really are inefficient consumers of brokerage trading services.

This paper analyzes the explanatory power of some of the recent theories of optimal capital structure. The study extends empirical work on capital structure theory in three ways. First, it examines a much broader set of capital structure theories, many of which have not previously been analyzed empirically. Second, since the theories have different empirical implications in regard to different types of debt instruments, the authors analyze measures of short-term, long-term, and convertible debt rather than an aggregate measure of total debt. Third, the study uses a factor-analytic technique that mitigates the measurement problems encountered when working with proxy variables.

ABSTRACT A thorough understanding of internal incentive structures is critical to developing a viable theory of the firm, since these incentives determine to a large extent how individuals inside an organization behave. Many common features of organizational incentive systems are not easily explained by traditional economic theory—including egalitarian pay systems in which compensation is largely independent of performance, the overwhelming use of promotion‐based incentive systems, the absence of up‐front fees for jobs and effective bonding contracts, and the general reluctance of employers to fire, penalize, or give poor performance evaluations to employees. Typical explanations for these practices offered by behaviorists and practitioners are distinctly uneconomic—focusing on notions such as fairness, equity, morale, trust, social responsibility, and culture. The challenge to economists is to provide viable economic explanations for these practices or to integrate these alternative notions into the traditional economic model.