I present a new approach to the dynamic portfolio and consumption problem of an investor who worries about model uncertainty (in addition to market risk) and seeks robust decisions along the lines of Anderson, Hansen, and Sargent (2002). In accordance with max-min expected utility, a robust investor insures against some endogenous worst case. I first show that robustness dramatically decreases the demand for equities and is observationally equivalent to recursive preferences when removing wealth effects. Unlike standard recursive preferences, however, robustness leads to environment-specific "effective" risk aversion. As an extension, I present a closed-form solution for the portfolio problem of a robust Duffie-Epstein-Zin investor. Finally, robustness increases the equilibrium equity premium and lowers the risk-free rate. Reasonable parameters generate a 4% to 6% equity premium.

This article examines the link between several well-known asset pricing “anomalies” and the covariance structure of returns. I find size, book-to-market, and momentum strategies exhibit a strong, weak, and negligible relation to covariance risk, respectively. A size factor helps predict future volatility and covariation, improving the efficiency of investment strategies. Moreover, its premium rises following increases in both its volatility and covariation with other assets. These effects are amplified in recessions. No such relations exist for book-to-market or momentum. These findings may shed light on explanations for these premia and present a challenging set of facts for future theory.

This article examines the link between several well-known asset pricing "anomalies" and the covariance structure of returns. I find size, book-to-market, and momentum strategies exhibit a strong, weak, and negligible relation to covariance risk, respectively. A size factor helps predict future volatility and covariation, improving the efficiency of investment strategies. Moreover, its premium rises following increases in both its volatility and covariation with other assets. These effects are amplified in recessions. No such relations exist for book-to-market or momentum. These findings may shed light on explanations for these premia and present a challenging set of facts for future theory.

This article uses bond market data to empirically test the asset pricing model of Kazemi (1992). According to this model the rate of return on a long-term, pure-discount, default-free bond will be perfectly correlated with changes in the marginal utility of the representative investor. The covariability between financial asset returns and returns on such a bond can therefore serve as a measure of the riskiness of assets. The aim of this study is to determine whether the model can explain cross-sectional differences in the monthly returns of bonds with different maturity dates. We estimate and test the restrictions imposed by the model on returns of default-free bonds, while allowing the conditional distribution of bond returns to be time varying. The model is rejected during the full sample period (1973–1995) and the subperiod (1973–1980) when the Federal Reserve's focus is on interest rates, while the model is not rejected during the subperiod (1981–1995) when the Federal Reserve's focus is on money supply.

[When a market order arrives, the NYSE specialist can offer a price one tick better than the limit orders on the book and trade for his own account. Alternatively, the specialist can "stop" the market order, which means he guarantees execution at the current quote but provides the possibility of price improvement. My model shows that specialists can use stops to sample the future order flow before making a commitment to trade. I present empirical evidence that both stops and immediate price improvement impose adverse selection costs on limit order traders.]

When a market order arrives, the NYSE specialist can offer a price one tick better than the limit orders on the book and trade for his own account. Alternatively, the specialist can "stop" the market order, which means he guarantees execution at the current quote but provides the possibility of price improvement. My model shows that specialists can use stops to sample the future order flow before making a commitment to trade. I present empirical evidence that both stops and immediate price improvement impose adverse selection costs on limit order traders.

This article investigates the long-term equity performance of Japanese firms issuing convertible debt and equity. We find that issuing firms perform poorly (except for equity rights issues) compared to nonissuing firms even though the stock-price reaction to convertible debt and equity issues is not negative for Japanese firms. This underperformance is strongest for firms issuing public convertible debt. In contrast to the United States, poor performance is not concentrated in smaller firms and in firms with a high market-to-book ratio. Simple behavioral explanations advanced for the new issue puzzle in the United States do not seem consistent with the Japanese experience.

This article presents a microstructure model of liquidity provision in which a specialist with market power competes against a competitive limit order book. General solutions, comparative statics and examples are provided first with uninformative orders and then when order flows are informative. The model is also used to address two optimal market design issues. The first is the effect of "tick" size–for example, eighths versus decimal pricing–on market liquidity. Institutions trading large blocks have a larger optimal tick size than small retail investors,but both prefer a tick size strictly greater than zero. Second, a hybrid specialist/limit order market (like the NYSE) provides better liquidity to small retail and institutional trades, but a pure limit order market (like the Paris Bourse) may offer better liquidity on mid-size orders.

Journal Article Liquidity Provision with Limit Orders and a Strategic Specialist Get access Duane J. Seppi Duane J. Seppi Carnegie Mellon University Address correspondence to Duane Seppi, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 1997, Pages 103–150, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/10.1.103 Published: 04 June 2015