Knowledge that Transforms

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

Fields:
206 results ✕ Clear filters

Do Takeover Defense Indices Measure Takeover Deterrence?

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(7), 2359-2412
Many researchers use the G-index or E-index to measure firms' takeover defenses. Others argue that these indices are not related to firms' takeover likelihoods. We find that, unlike their raw values, the instrumented versions of these indices are significantly and negatively related to acquisition likelihood. The difference between the raw and instrumented results indicates that the G-index and E-index include an endogenous component and highlights the importance of accounting for endogeneity in tests that use takeover indices to measure takeover deterrence. We provide data on new instruments that researchers can use to address these issues.

Bond Market Exposures to Macroeconomic and Monetary Policy Risks

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(8), 2761-2817
The paper estimates a model that allows for shifts in the aggressiveness of monetary policy and time variation in the distribution of macroeconomic shocks. These model features induce variations in the cyclical properties of inflation and the riskiness of bonds. The estimation identifies inflation as procyclical from the late 1990s, when the economy shifted toward aggressive monetary policy and experienced procyclical macroeconomics shocks. Since bonds hedge stock market risks when inflation is procylical, the stock-bond return correlation turned negative in the late 1990s. The risks of encountering countercyclical inflation in the future could lead to an upward-sloping yield curve, like in the data.

It Depends on Where You Search: Institutional Investor Attention and Underreaction to News

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(9), 3009-3047
We propose a direct measure of abnormal institutional investor attention (AIA) using news searching and news reading activity for specific stocks on Bloomberg terminals. AIA is highly correlated with institutional trading measures and related to, but different from, other investor attention proxies. Contrasting AIA with retail attention measured by Google search activity, we find that institutional attention responds more quickly to major news events, leads retail attention, and facilitates permanent price adjustment. The well-documented price drifts following both earnings announcements and analyst recommendation changes are driven by announcements to which institutional investors fail to pay sufficient attention.

What Determines Entrepreneurial Outcomes in Emerging Markets? The Role of Initial Conditions

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(7), 2478-2522
We study how institutions influence start-up characteristics of firms and how these characteristics predict entrants' growth trajectories over the early firm life cycle. Using census data from India, we find that greater financial development is associated with higher entry rates and smaller-sized entrants. Following entry, however, large and small entrants grow at the same rates across states with different institutions or industries with differing reliance on external finance. The impact of access to finance is greater on start-up size and entry rates than on the subsequent growth of firms during the early life cycle.

Asymmetries and Portfolio Choice

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(2), 667-702
We examine the portfolio choice of an investor with generalized disappointment-aversion preferences who faces log returns described by a normal-exponential model. We derive a three-fund separation strategy: the investor allocates wealth to a risk-free asset, a standard mean-variance efficient fund, and an additional fund reflecting return asymmetries. The optimal portfolio is characterized by the investor’s endogenous effective risk aversion and implicit asymmetry aversion. In empirical applications, we find that disappointment aversion is associated with much larger asymmetry aversion than are standard preferences. Our model explains patterns in popular portfolio advice across both risk appetites and investment horizons. Received November 12, 2015; editorial decision July 20, 2016 by Editor Stefan Nagel.

Where's the Kink? Disappointment Events in Consumption Growth and Equilibrium Asset Prices

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(8), 2851-2889
I propose a consumption-based asset pricing model with disappointment aversion to investigate the link between downside consumption risk and expected returns across asset markets. I find that the disappointment model can explain 95% of the cross-sectional variation in size/book-to-market portfolios and more than 80% of the variation in the joint sample of stocks, bonds, and commodity futures. I also show that the performance of the disappointment model is comparable to that of the Fama-French three-factor specification, regardless of the sample frequency (annual, quarterly). Overall, my results indicate that disappointment aversion considerably improves the fit of consumption-based asset pricing models.

Design of Financial Securities: Empirical Evidence from Private-Label RMBS Deals

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(1), 120-161
We study the key drivers of security design in the residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) market during the run-up to the subprime mortgage crisis. We show that deals with a higher level of equity tranche have a significantly lower delinquency rate conditional on observable loan characteristics. The effect is concentrated within pools with a higher likelihood of asymmetric information between deal sponsors and potential buyers of the securities. Further, securities sold from high-equity-tranche deals command higher prices conditional on their credit ratings. Overall, our results show that the goal of security design in this market was not only to exploit regulatory arbitrage, but also to mitigate information frictions that were pervasive in this market. (JEL G20, G30) Received August 26, 2014; accepted May 3, 2016, by Editor Itay Goldstein.

Mispricing Factors

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(4), 1270-1315
A four-factor model with two "mispricing" factors, in addition to market and size factors, accommodates a large set of anomalies better than notable four- and five-factor alternative models. Moreover, our size factor reveals a small-firm premium nearly twice usual estimates. The mispricing factors aggregate information across 11 prominent anomalies by averaging rankings within two clusters exhibiting the greatest return co-movement. Investor sentiment predicts the mispricing factors, especially their short legs, consistent with a mispricing interpretation and the asymmetry in ease of buying versus shorting. A three-factor model with a single mispricing factor also performs well, especially in Bayesian model comparisons.

Fraudulent Income Overstatement on Mortgage Applications During the Credit Expansion of 2002 to 2005

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(6), 1831-1864
Treating fraudulently overstated income on mortgage applications as true income can lead to incorrect conclusions on the nature of the mortgage credit supply expansion toward marginal borrowers from 2002 to 2005. A positive gap between zip-code-level income growth calculated from mortgage applications and income growth from the IRS likely reflects mortgage fraud, not an improvement in home-buyer income. In support of the credit supply view, mortgage credit for home purchase expanded significantly more in low-credit-score neighborhoods on both the extensive and intensive margins from 2002 to 2005, even though these neighborhoods deteriorated on many measures of income prospects.

Are Stocks Real Assets? Sticky Discount Rates in Stock Markets

Review of Financial Studies 2017 30(2), 539-587
Local stock markets adjust sluggishly to changes in local inflation. When the local rate of inflation increases, local investors subsequently earn lower real returns on local stocks, but not on local bonds or foreign stocks, suggesting that local stock market investors use sticky long-run nominal discount rates that are too low when inflation increases because they are slow to update the inflation expectations in discount rates. Small amounts of stickiness in inflation expectations suffice to match the real stock return predictability induced by inflation in the data. We also consider other explanations, such as nominal cash flow extrapolation. Received September 14, 2015; editorial decision June 30, 2016 by Editor Stefan Nagel.