Knowledge that Transforms

We assess the properties of currency value strategies based on real exchange rates. We find that real exchange rates have predictive power for the cross-section of currency excess returns. However, adjusting real exchange rates for key country-specific fundamentals (productivity, the quality of export goods, net foreign assets, and output gaps) better isolates information related to the currency risk premium. In turn, the resultant measure of currency value displays considerably stronger predictive power for currency excess returns. Finally, the predictive information content in our currency value measure is distinct from that embedded in popular currency strategies, such as carry and momentum. Received June 26, 2015; accepted June 8, 2016 by Editor Stefan Nagel.

Recent evidence suggests that younger people update beliefs in response to aggregate shocks more than older people. We embed this generational learning bias in an equilibrium model in which agents have recursive preferences and are uncertain about exogenous aggregate dynamics. The departure from rational expectations is statistically modest, but generates high average risk premiums varying at generational frequencies, a positive relation between past returns and agents' future return forecasts, and substantial and persistent over-and undervaluation. Consistent with the model, the price-dividend ratio is empirically more sensitive to macroeconomic shocks when the fraction of young in the population is higher.

We take up Cochrane’s (2011) challenge to identify the firm characteristics that provide independent information about average U.S. monthly stock returns by simultaneously including 94 characteristics in Fama-MacBeth regressions that avoid overweighting microcaps and adjust for data-snooping bias. We find that while 12 characteristics are reliably independent determinants in non-microcap stocks from 1980 to 2014 as a whole, return predictability sharply fell in 2003 such that just two characteristics have been independent determinants since then. Outside of microcaps, the hedge returns to exploiting characteristics-based predictability also have been insignificantly different from zero since 2003.

The liquidity premium theory of interest rates predicts that the Treasury yield curve steepens with inflation uncertainty as investors demand larger risk premiums to hold long-term bonds. By using the dispersion of inflation forecasts to measure this uncertainty, we find the opposite. Since the prices of long-term bonds move more with inflation than short-term ones, investors also disagree and speculate more about long-maturity payoffs with greater uncertainty. Shorting frictions, measured by using Treasury lending fees, then lead long maturities to become overpriced and the yield curve to flatten. We estimate this inflation-betting effect using time variation in inflation disagreement and Treasury supply. Received September 3, 2014; editorial decision August 5, 2016 by Editor Andrew Karolyi

The long-run standard deviation (LRSD) of consumption growth is a key moment in determining risk premiums under Epstein-Zin preferences. Standard estimators of the LRSD are biased downward and have poor confidence interval coverage, making them overreject the long-run risk model. This paper studies a new estimator with smaller bias and accurate confidence intervals. Standard long-run risk calibrations are still rejected in the data. The LRSD of consumption growth in the postwar sample is estimated to be 2.5% per year with an upper bound to the 95% confidence interval of 4.9%. These values can be taken as benchmarks for future calibrations. Received October 29, 2014; accepted February 18, 2016 by Editor Leonid Kogan.

We model the financing, cash holdings, and hedging policies of a firm facing financing frictions and subject to permanent and transitory cash flow shocks. The permanent and transitory shocks generate distinct, sometimes opposite, effects on corporate policies. We use the model to develop a rich set of empirical predictions. In our model, correlated permanent and transitory shocks imply less risk, lower cash savings, and a drop in the value of credit lines. The composition of cash-flow shocks affects the cash-flow sensitivity of cash, which can be positive or negative. Optimal hedging of permanent and transitory shocks may involve opposite positions. Received September 16, 2015; editorial decision July 3, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

The unique regulation of U.S. public pension funds links their liability discount rate to the expected return on assets, which gives them incentives to invest more in risky assets in order to report a better funding status. Comparing public and private pension funds in the United States, Canada, and Europe, we find that U.S. public pension funds act on their regulatory incentives. U.S. public pension funds with a higher level of underfunding per participant, as well as funds with more politicians and elected plan participants serving on the board, take more risk and use higher discount rates. The increased risk-taking by U.S. public funds is negatively related to their performance.

Previous studies have identified a negative relation between firms’hiring rates and future stock returns in the cross-section. We document that this relation is significantly steeper in industries that rely relatively more on high-skill workers than low-skill workers. A longshort portfolio sorted on firm-level hiring rate earns an average annual return of 8.6 % in high-skill industries, and only 0.9 % in low-skill industries. Moreover, this pattern is not explained by the standard CAPM. These findings are consistent with a neoclassical model with labor force heterogeneity and labor market frictions if it is more costly to replace high-skill than low-skill workers.

The return premium associated with the Amihud (2002) measure is generally considered a liquidity premium that compensates for price impact. We find that the pricing of the Amihud measure is not attributable to the construction of the return-to-volume ratio intended to capture price impact, but is driven by the trading volume component. Additionally, the high-frequency price impact and spread benchmarks are priced only in January and do not explain the pricing of the trading volume component of the Amihud measure. Additional analyses suggest that the volume effect on stock return is likely caused by mispricing, not by compensation for illiquidity.