We examine the predictive power of the dividend yields for forecasting excess returns, cash flows, and interest rates. Dividend yields predict excess returns only at short horizons together with the short rate and do not have any long-horizon predictive power. At short horizons, the short rate strongly negatively predicts returns. These results are robust in international data and are not due to lack of power. A present value model that matches the data shows that discount rate and short rate movements play a large role in explaining the variation in dividend yields. Finally, we find that earnings yields significantly predict future cash flows. (JEL C12, C51, C52, E49, F30, G12)

Correlations between international equity market returns tend to increase in highly volatile bear markets, which has led some to doubt the benefits of international diversification. This article solves the dynamic portfolio choice problem of a U.S. investor faced with a time-varying investment opportunity set modeled using a regime-switching process which may be characterized by correlations and volatilities that increase in bad times. International diversification is still valuable with regime changes and currency hedging imparts further benefit. The costs of ignoring the regimes are small for all-equity portfolios but increase when a conditionally risk-free asset can be held.

Abstract Recent studies suggest that the underperformance of IPOs in the post-1970 sample may be a small sample effect or “Peso problem.” That is, IPO underperformance may result from observing too few star performers ex post than were expected ex ante. We develop a model of IPO performance that captures this intuition by allowing returns to be drawn from mixtures of outstanding, benchmark, or poor performing states. We estimate the model under the null of no ex ante average IPO underperformance and construct small sample distributions of various statistics measuring IPO relative performance. We find that small sample biases are extremely unlikely to account for the magnitude of the post-1970 IPO underperformance observed in data.

ABSTRACT While many studies document that the market risk premium is predictable and that betas are not constant, the dividend discount model ignores time‐varying risk premiums and betas. We develop a model to consistently value cashflows with changing risk‐free rates, predictable risk premiums, and conditional betas in the context of a conditional CAPM. Practical valuation is accomplished with an analytic term structure of discount rates, with different discount rates applied to expected cashflows at different horizons. Using constant discount rates can produce large misvaluations, which, in portfolio data, are mostly driven at short horizons by market risk premiums and at long horizons by time variation in risk‐free rates and factor loadings.

We examine the efficiency of using individual stocks or portfolios as base assets to test asset pricing models using cross-sectional data. The literature has argued that creating portfolios reduces idiosyncratic volatility and allows more precise estimates of factor loadings, and consequently risk premia. We show analytically and empirically that smaller standard errors of portfolio beta estimates do not lead to smaller standard errors of cross-sectional coefficient estimates. Factor risk premia standard errors are determined by the cross-sectional distributions of factor loadings and residual risk. Portfolios destroy information by shrinking the dispersion of betas, leading to larger standard errors.

ABSTRACT Implicit tax rates priced in the cross section of municipal bonds are approximately two to three times as high as statutory income tax rates, with implicit tax rates close to 100% using retail trades and above 70% for interdealer trades. These implied tax rates can be identified because a portion of secondary market municipal bond trades involves income taxes. After valuing the tax payments, market discount bonds, which carry income tax liabilities, trade at yields around 25 basis points higher than comparable municipal bonds not subject to any taxes. The high sensitivities of municipal bond prices to tax rates can be traced to individual retail traders dominating dealers and other institutions.

ABSTRACT Changes in nominal interest rates must be due to either movements in real interest rates, expected inflation, or the inflation risk premium. We develop a term structure model with regime switches, time‐varying prices of risk, and inflation to identify these components of the nominal yield curve. We find that the unconditional real rate curve in the United States is fairly flat around 1.3%. In one real rate regime, the real term structure is steeply downward sloping. An inflation risk premium that increases with maturity fully accounts for the generally upward sloping nominal term structure.

We provide a formal treatment of both static and dynamic portfolio choice using the Disappointment Aversion preferences of Gul (1991. Econometrica 59(3), 667–686), which imply asymmetric aversion to gains versus losses. Our dynamic formulation nests the standard CRRA asset allocation problem as a special case. Using realistic data generating processes, we find reasonable equity portfolio allocations for disappointment averse investors with utility functions exhibiting low curvature. Moderate variation in parameters can robustly generate substantial cross-sectional variation in portfolio holdings, including optimal non-participation in the stock market.

Economists have long recognized that investors care differently about downside losses versus upside gains. Agents who place greater weight on downside risk demand additional compensation for holding stocks with high sensitivities to downside market movements. We show that the cross section of stock returns reflects a downside risk premium of approximately 6% per annum. Stocks that covary strongly with the market during market declines have high average returns. The reward for beasring downside risk is not simply compensation for regular market beta, nor is it explained by coskewness or liquidity risk, or by size, value, and momentum characteristics. (JEL C12, C15, C32, G12) Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Stocks with recent past high idiosyncratic volatility have low future average returns around the world. Across 23 developed markets, the difference in average returns between the extreme quintile portfolios sorted on idiosyncratic volatility is -1.31% per month, after controlling for world market, size, and value factors. The effect is individually significant in each G7 country. In the United States, we rule out explanations based on trading frictions, information dissemination, and higher moments. There is strong covariation in the low returns to high-idiosyncratic-volatility stocks across countries, suggesting that broad, not easily diversifiable factors lie behind this phenomenon.