Knowledge that Transforms

To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
44 results ✕ Clear filters

Stock returns and volatility a firm-level analysis

Journal of Financial Economics 1995 37(3), 399-420
It has been previously documented that individual firms' stock return volatility rises after stock prices fall. This paper finds that this statistical relation is largely due to a positive contemporaneous relation between firm stock returns and firm stock return volatility. This positive relation is strongest for both small firms and firms with little financial leverage. At the aggregate level, the sign of this contemporaneous relation is reversed. The reasons for the difference between the aggregate- and firm-level relations are explored.

Incentives, downsizing, and value creation at general dynamics,

Journal of Financial Economics 1995 37(3), 261-314
In 1991, defense contractor General Dynamics engaged a new management team which adopted an explicit corporate objective of creating shareholder value. The company tied executive compensation to shareholder wealth creation, and subsequently implemented a strategy that included downsizing, restructuring, and exit. Paying large executive cash bonuses amid layoffs ignited controversy. However, by 1993 shareholders realized gains approaching $4.5 billion, representing a dividend-reinvested return of 553%. The study shows how incentives assist in shaping strategy, illustrates the political costs and economic benefits of downsizing and demonstrates that even firms in declining industries have substantial opportunities for value creation.

Closed-end fund premia and returns implications for financial market equilibrium

Journal of Financial Economics 1995 37(3), 341-370
This paper examines the relation between closed-end fund premia and returns. Additional evidence is provided on Thompson's (1978) finding that fund premia are negatively correlated with future returns. Funds with 20% discounts have expected twelve-month returns that are 6% greater than nondiscounted funds. This correlation is attributed to premium mean-reversion, not to anticipated future portfolio performance. Economically motivated explanations do not account for this effect.

Multifactor models do not explain deviations from the CAPM

Journal of Financial Economics 1995 38(1), 3-28 open access
A number of studies have presented evidence rejecting the validity of the Sharpe-Lintner capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Possible alternatives include risk-based models, such as multifactor asset pricing models, or nonrisk-based models which address biases in empirical methodology, the existence of market frictions, or the presence of irrational investors. Distinguishing between the alternatives is important for applications such as cost of capital estimation. This paper develops a framework which shows that, ex ante, CAPM deviations due to missing risk factors will be very difficult to detect empirically, whereas deviations resulting from nonrisk-based sources are easily detectable. The results suggest that multifactor pricing models alone do not entirely resolve CAPM deviations.