ABSTRACT This paper constructs a liquidity mismatch index (LMI) to gauge the mismatch between the market liquidity of assets and the funding liquidity of liabilities, for 2,882 bank holding companies over 2002 to 2014. The aggregate LMI decreases from +$4 trillion precrisis to −$6 trillion in 2008. We conduct an LMI stress test revealing the fragility of the banking system in early 2007. Moreover, LMI predicts a bank's stock market crash probability and borrowing decisions from the government during the financial crisis. The LMI is therefore informative about both individual bank liquidity and the liquidity risk of the entire banking system.

What makes an asset a “safe” asset? We study a model where two countries each issue sovereign bonds to satisfy investors’ safe asset demands. The countries differ in the float of their bonds and the fundamental resources available to rollover debts. A sovereign’s debt is safer if its fundamentals are strong relative to other possible safe assets, not merely strong on an absolute basis. If demand for safe assets is high, a large float enhances safety through a market depth benefit. If demand for safe assets is low, then large debt size is a negative as rollover risk looms large. (JEL F34, H63)

US government bonds are considered to be the world's safe store of value, especially during periods of economic turmoil such as the events of 2008. But what makes US government bonds “safe assets”? We highlight coordination among investors, and build a model in which two countries with heterogeneous sizes issue bonds that may be chosen as safe asset. Our model illustrates the benefit of a large absolute debt size as safe asset investors have “nowhere else to go” in equilibrium, and the large country's bonds are chosen as the safe asset. Moreover, the effect becomes stronger in crisis periods.

We integrate a widely accepted version of the separation of ownership and control—Michael Jensen's (1986) free cash flow theory—into a dynamic equilibrium model, and study the effect of imperfect corporate control on asset prices and investment. Aggregate free cash flow of the corporate sector is an important state variable in explaining asset prices, investment, and the cyclical behavior of interest rates and the yield curve. The financial friction causes cash-flow shocks to affect investment, and causes otherwise i.i.d. shocks to be transmitted from period to period. The shocks propagate through large firms and during booms.

The field of asset pricing is a rich and diverse discipline that has contributed to many areas of discourse, including those of fundamental importance to policy makers, investors, and households.1 As we look ahead during a time of substantial economic and political change, it is apparent that society faces many pressing questions, both new and old, that the field is uniquely suited to informing.To contribute to this conversation, the NBER Asset Pricing program convened a panel discussion on “Perspectives on the Future of Asset Pricing” at its November 8, 2019, meeting that took place at Stanford University. The objective of the panel was to identify some of the important questions the field could productively address in the next five to 10 years. The panelists, consisting of experts in several subfields of asset pricing, were invited to share their views on these questions with an eye toward innovative research topics that are ripe for exploring, and the metrics the field could be using to gauge progress.