Richard A. Brealey, Ian A. Cooper, Evi Kaplanis; What is the International Dimension of International Finance?, European Finance Review, Volume 3, Issue 1,

Abstract If an individual with expected utility and a reasonable level of wealth rejects a small actuarially favorable gamble, it implies a very high degree of risk aversion. It also predicts (counterfactually) the rejection of more sizable and very attractive bets. If additional background uncertainty affects wealth, this result also applies to non-expected utilities. The authors describe a set of reasonable conditions under which an individual may reject the small bet but accept the large bet, even in the presence of background uncertainty. The two critical assumptions that the authors use are rank-dependent utility and a discrete distribution for background risk. Plausible calibrations can reconcile large/small bet risk attitudes and the empirical evidence on limited stock market participation in the presence of labor income risk.

Abstract This paper examines the expropriation of a foreign investor by a local partner and the subsequent resolution of the case through international arbitration in favor of the investor. Despite the investor's 99% interest in the joint venture, the local partner managed to divert the entire value of the underlying entity for his personal benefit. This clinical examination of an expropriation and its aftermath illustrates the interaction of property and contract rights in a global setting, how corporate control is shaped by geography, and how multinational firms may be advantaged by availing themselves of stronger investor protections than local firms.

Abstract By analyzing the portfolio allocations of target date funds (TDFs), we document that the observed durations of TDF portfolios are inconsistent with the durations predicted by classical portfolio theory. We call this stylized fact the duration puzzle. We investigate to what extent several extensions of classical portfolio theory can explain the duration puzzle. More specifically, we consider the impact of human capital, inflation risk, and portfolio restrictions on the duration of the optimal portfolio. We find that it is difficult to explain the duration puzzle, especially for individuals aged between 35 and 65 years.

Abstract Fama and French (1992) show that size and book-to-price dominate CAPM beta and other variables such as the price-earnings ratio and dividend yield in explaining the cross-section of US stock returns. Comparable evidence for the UK points to a book-to-price effect, but not a size effect (Chan and Chui, 1996; Strong and Xu, 1997). In this paper, our first contribution is to show that a measure of research and development (RD) helps explain cross-sectional variation in UK stock returns. Our cross-sectional results on the association between stock returns and RD are consistent with recent US evidence reported by Lev and Sougiannis (1996, 1999) and Chan, Lakonishok and Sougiannis (2001).Fama and French (1993, 1995, 1996) also show that a three-factor model captures a high proportion of the time series variation in portfolio returns, again for the US. Our second contribution is to show, for the UK, that a modification to the three-factor model to take account of RD activity can significantly enhance the explanatory power of the three-factor model. We show that, as a practical matter, estimated risk premia based on the modified three-factor model can differ considerably from risk premia estimated using the CAPM or the three-factor model. In particular, risk premia for industries in which few firms undertake RD activities tend to be over-estimated.

Abstract Some market crashes occur because of significant imbalances in demand and supply. Conventional models fail to explain the large magnitudes of price declines. We propose a unified structural framework for explaining crashes, based on the insights of market microstructure invariance. A proper adjustment for differences in business time across markets leads to predictions which are different from conventional wisdom and consistent with observed price changes during the 1987 market crash and the 2008 sales by Société Générale. Somewhat larger-than-predicted price drops during 1987 and 2010 flash crashes may have been exacerbated by too rapid selling. Somewhat smaller-than-predicted price decline during the 1929 crash may be due to slower selling and perhaps better resiliency of less integrated markets.

Abstract If a nonlinear risk premium in a conditional asset pricing model is approximated with a linear function, as is commonly done in empirical research, the fitted model is misspecified. We use a generic reduced-form model economy with moderate risk premium nonlinearity to examine the size of the resulting misspecification-induced pricing errors. Pricing errors from moderate nonlinearity can be large, and a version of a test for nonlinearity based on risk premiums rather than pricing errors has reasonable power properties after properly controlling for the size of the test. We conclude by examining the importance of moderate nonlinearity in the context of the investment-specific technology shock models of Papanikolaou (2011) and Kogan and Papanikolaou (2014).

Abstract Many households concurrently hold low-yield liquid assets while incurring costly credit card debt. In our sample, more than 80% of households with credit card debt also have low-yield liquid assets. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 30,517), we examine the role of noncognitive skills as well as the economic, financial, and demographic factors that affect the likelihood of co-holding. We find that the “Big Five” personality traits have a statistically significant and economically important effect: households with a more agreeable, introvert, and less conscientious head of household are more likely to co-hold. We also examine the role of intra-household dynamics.

Abstract Previous studies have identified several variables that would have predicted future stock returns, though other studies suggest these results may be due to data snooping. To guard against data snooping, researchers have suggested use of Bayesian model averaging (BMA) to account for the uncertainty about prediction models. In common with other researchers, I find evidence of predictability during time periods when a hypothetical investor uses BMA with no restrictions on what variables may be included in the model. However, when the hypothetical investor is limited to using only variables whose predictive ability would have been known at the time of the forecast, predictability disappears. Moreover, predictability also disappears when data are updated through 2010, even without constraints on variable use. The results cast doubt on whether stock returns were ever predictable in real time and also suggest that returns may no longer be predictable even if real-time constraints are removed.

Abstract We present a possible explanation for the lack of permanence of the very high levels of concentration of ownership that accompany leveraged buyouts. We first argue that some diffusion of ownership can be beneficial to the shareholders of a firm by encouraging the employees of the firm to enter into implicit contracts with the firm. The level of concentration of ownership that maximizes firm value is therefore that which trades off the well-known gains from monitoring with the gains from implicit contracting. We then argue that, in the process of concentrating the ownership of a firm that has excessively diffuse ownership to a level that maximizes firm value, investors in leveraged buyouts will choose an initial level of concentration of ownership that is very high. They will do so in order to put pressure on managers to breach existing implicit contracts. Following the breach of these contracts, investors will decrease the level of concentration of ownership to the level that maximizes firm value. There will be no further breach of implicit contracts, for such breach is incidental to the transformation of the firm from one that has excessively diffuse ownership to one that has the optimal level of diffusion of ownership. No change in the concentration of ownership therefore occurs once the level of diffusion of ownership that maximizes firm value has been attained. JEL Classification: G30.