Macro-finance addresses the link between asset prices and economic fluctuations. Many models reflect the same rough idea: the market’s ability to bear risk is greater in good times, and less in bad times. Models achieve this similar result by quite different mechanisms. I contrast their strengths and weaknesses. I highlight directions for future research, including additional facts to be matched, and limitations of the models that should prod future theoretical work. I describe how macro-finance models can fundamentally alter macroeconomics, by putting time-varying risk premiums and risk-bearing capacity at the center of recessions rather than variation in the interest rate and intertemporal substitution.

This paper measures the mean, standard deviation, alpha, and beta of venture capital investments, using a maximum likelihood estimate that corrects for selection bias. The bias-corrected estimation neatly accounts for log returns. It reduces the estimate of the mean log return from 108% to 15%, and of the log market model intercept from 92% to -7%. The selection bias correction also dramatically attenuates high arithmetic average returns: it reduces the mean arithmetic return from 698% to 59%, and it reduces the arithmetic alpha from 462% to 32%. I confirm the robustness of the estimates in a variety of ways. I also find that the smallest Nasdaq stocks have similar large means, volatilities, and arithmetic alphas in this time period, confirming that the remaining puzzles are not special to venture capital.

The author reports a bound on the variance of price-dividend ratios and a decomposition of their variance into terms that reflect changes in dividend growth and discount rates. The specification is not restrictive. The test statistics do not require construction of ex post present values; instead, they are restrictions on means, variances, and covariances of price-dividend ratios, dividend growth, and discount rates. He considers implications for the mean price-dividend ratio, and he evaluates whether a low mean discount rate can rationalize the mean and variance of price-dividend ratios. The results do not indicate any striking rejections of present-value models. However, the bulk of the variance of price-dividend ratios must be accounted for by changing forecasts of discount rates, and discount rates must possess some unusual characteristics. Article published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Financial Studies in its journal, The Review of Financial Studies.

The fiscal theory says that the price level is determined by the ratio of nominal debt to the present value of real primary surpluses. I analyze long-term debt and optimal policy in the fiscal theory. I find that the maturity structure of the debt matters. For example, it determines whether news of future deficits implies current inflation or future inflation. When long-term debt is present, the government can trade current inflation for future inflation by debt operations; this tradeoff is not present if the government rolls over short-term debt. The maturity structure of outstanding debt acts as a ‘‘budget constraint’’ determining which periods’ price levels the government can affect by debt variation alone. In addition, debt policythe expected pattern of future state-contingent debt sales, repurchases and redemptionsmatters crucially for the effects of a debt operation. I solve for optimal debt policies to minimize the variance of inflation. I find cases in which long-term debt helps to stabilize inflation. I also find that the optimal policy produces time series that are similar to U.S. surplus and debt time series. To understand the data, I must assume that debt policy offsets the inflationary impact of cyclical surplus shocks, rather than causing price level disturbances by policy-induced shocks. Shifting the objective from price level variance to inflation variance, the optimal policy produces much less volatile inflation at the cost of a unit root in the price level; this is consistent with the stabilization of U.S. inflation after the gold standard was abandoned.

Suppose a consumer sets consumption equal to income each period, rather than following the optimal permanent income decision rule. How much utility does he lose? This paper finds that the answer is typically less than 10 cents-$1 per quarter in environments specified by popular tests on aggregate data. It includes calculations of the costs of excess sensitivity and excess smoothness to income and interest rate changes and the costs of ignoring information. It concludes that the theory does not make predictions for aggregate tests that are robust to small costs, such as information or transactions.

Discount‐rate variation is the central organizing question of current asset‐pricing research. I survey facts, theories, and applications. Previously, we thought returns were unpredictable, with variation in price‐dividend ratios due to variation in expected cashflows. Now it seems all price‐dividend variation corresponds to discount‐rate variation. We also thought that the cross‐section of expected returns came from the CAPM. Now we have a zoo of new factors. I categorize discount‐rate theories based on central ingredients and data sources. Incorporating discount‐rate variation affects finance applications, including portfolio theory, accounting, cost of capital, capital structure, compensation, and macroeconomics.

This paper describes a production‐based asset pricing model. It is analogous to the standard consumption‐based model, but it uses producers and production functions in the place of consumers and utility functions. The model ties stock returns to investment returns (marginal rates of transformation) which are inferred from investment data via a production function. The production‐based model is used to examine forecasts of stock returns by business‐cycle related variables and the association of stock returns with subsequent economic activity.

The new-Keynesian, Taylor rule theory of inflation determination relies on explosive dynamics. By raising interest rates in response to inflation, the Fed induces ever-larger inflation, unless inflation jumps to one particular value on each date. However, economics does not rule out explosive inflation, so inflation remains indeterminate. Attempts to fix this problem assume that the government will choose to blow up the economy if alternative equilibria emerge, by following policies we usually consider impossible. The Taylor rule is not identified without unrealistic assumptions. Thus, Taylor rule regressions do not show that the Fed moved from “passive” to “active” policy in 1980.

The author examines a factor pricing model for stock returns. The factors are returns on physical investment, inferred from investment data via a production function. The author examines the model's ability to explain variation in expected returns across assets and over time. The model is not rejected. It performs about as well as the CAPM and the Chen, Roll, and Ross (1986) factor model, and it performs substantially better than a simple consumption-based model. The author also provides an easy technique for estimating and testing dynamic, conditional asset pricing models--one simply includes factors and returns scaled by instruments in an unconditional estimate--and for comparing such models.