We show that inflation risk is priced in international asset returns. We analyze inflation risk in a framework that encompasses the International Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM) of Adler and Dumas (1983). In contrast to the extant empirical literature on the ICAPM, we relax the assumption that inflation rates are constant. We estimate and test a conditional version of the model for the G5 countries (France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US) over the period 1975–1998 and find evidence of statistically and economically significant prices of inflation risk (in addition to priced nominal exchange rate risk). Our results imply a rejection of the restrictions imposed by the ICAPM. In an extension of our analysis to 2003, we show that even after the termination of nominal exchange rate fluctuations in the euro area in 1999, differences in inflation rates across countries entail non-trivial real exchange rate risk premia.

Many studies report that the size effect in the cross-section of stock returns disappeared after the early 1980s. This paper shows that its disappearance can be attributed to negative shocks to the profitability of small firms and positive shocks to big firms. After adjusting for the price impact of profitability shocks, we find a robust size effect in the cross-section of expected returns after the early 1980s. Our results highlight the importance of in-sample cash-flow shocks in understanding cross-sectional return predictability.Received April 2, 2014; editorial decision August 6, 2018 by Editor Laura Starks.

Abstract We propose a new private information measure based on a model of strategic trade optimization in the cross section of securities. Investors receive liquidity and private information shocks and optimize trading across securities, accounting for price impact (Kyle’s λ). The model yields a simple private information measure: λ×OIB (order imbalance). Intuitively, order imbalance is more likely to be information-driven when trading is expensive. We validate our measure by showing that it is greater for smaller firms with higher analyst dispersion, peaks with insider trades, helps explain return reversals, predicts return volatility, and increases before M&A announcements and after analyst coverage terminations. (JEL G11, G12, G14)

We study the dynamics of high-frequency market efficiency measures. We provide evidence that these measures comove across stocks and with each other, suggesting the existence of a systematic market efficiency component. In vector autoregressions, we show that shocks to funding liquidity (the TED spread), hedge fund assets under management, and a proxy for algorithmic trading are significantly associated with systematic market efficiency. Thus, stock market efficiency is prone to systematic fluctuations, and, consistent with recent theories, events and policies that impact funding liquidity can affect the aggregate degree of price efficiency.

Abstract This paper evaluates investment strategies that exploit the deviations from theoretical price parity in a sample of 12 dual-listed companies (DLCs) in the period 1980–2002. We show that simple trading rules produce abnormal returns of up to almost 10% per annum adjusted for systematic risk, transaction costs, and margin requirements. However, arbitrageurs face uncertainty about the horizon at which prices will converge and deviations from parity are very volatile. As a result, DLC arbitrage is characterized by substantial idiosyncratic return volatility and a high incidence of large negative returns, which are likely to impede arbitrage.

Using quarterly data on initial public offerings (IPOs) and seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) for 37 countries from 1995 to 2014, we show that changes in equity issuance are positively related to lagged changes in aggregate local stock market liquidity. This relation is as economically significant as the well-known relation between equity issuance and lagged stock returns. It survives the inclusion of proxies for market timing, capital market conditions, growth prospects, asymmetric information, and investor sentiment. Changes in liquidity are less relevant for issuance by firms with greater financial pressures and by firms in less financially developed countries.

We examine how commonality in liquidity varies across countries and over time in ways related to supply determinants (funding liquidity of financial intermediaries) and demand determinants (correlated trading behavior of international and institutional investors, incentives to trade individual securities, and investor sentiment) of liquidity. Commonality in liquidity is greater in countries with and during times of high market volatility (especially, large market declines), greater presence of international investors, and more correlated trading activity. Our evidence is more reliably consistent with demand-side explanations and challenges the ability of the funding liquidity hypothesis to help us understand important aspects of financial market liquidity around the world, even during the recent financial crisis.

We use earnings forecasts from a cross-sectional model to proxy for cash flow expectations and estimate the implied cost of capital (ICC) for a large sample of firms over 1968¿2008. The earnings forecasts generated by the cross-sectional model are superior to analysts' forecasts in terms of coverage, forecast bias, and earnings response coefficient. Moreover, the model-based ICC is a more reliable proxy for expected returns than the ICC based on analysts' forecasts. We present evidence on the cross-sectional relation between firm-level characteristics and ex ante expected returns using the model-based ICC.

We use the exogenous shock of COVID-19 to explore the resilience of firms with strong ESG (environmental, social, and governance) ratings across 63 countries and three asset classes: stocks, credit default swaps (CDS), and corporate bonds. We show that the resilience of strong ESG firms is not a consistent global phenomenon outside of North America and varies considerably across countries. Additional evidence points towards a substitution effect between firm-level sustainability performance as captured by ESG ratings and country-level sustainability performance especially in terms of healthcare coverage. Overall, our findings indicate that the capacity of strong ESG firms to serve as “rainy day assets” is geography-dependent and that ESG considerations can also affect international corporate debt markets.

We provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the relation between ESG ratings and stock returns, using 16,000+ stocks in 48 countries and seven different ESG rating providers. We find very little evidence that ESG ratings are related to global stock returns between 2001 and 2020. This finding obtains across different regions, time periods, ESG (sub)ratings, ESG momentum, ESG downgrades and upgrades, and best-in-class strategies. We further find little empirical support for prominent hypotheses from the literature on the role of ESG uncertainty and of country-level ESG social norms, ESG disclosure standards, and ESG regulations in shaping the relation between ESG and global stock returns. Overall, our results suggest that ESG investing did not systematically affect investment performance during the past two decades.