We analyze 18 quadrillion models for the joint pricing of corporate bond and stock returns. Strikingly, we find that equity and nontradable factors alone suffice to explain corporate bond risk premia once their Treasury term structure risk is accounted for, rendering the extensive bond factor literature largely redundant for this purpose. While only a handful of factors, behavioral and nontradable, are likely robust sources of priced risk, the true latent stochastic discount factor is dense in the space of observable factors. Consequently, a Bayesian Model Averaging Stochastic Discount Factor explains risk premia better than all low-dimensional models, in- and out-of-sample, by optimally aggregating dozens of factors that serve as noisy proxies for common underlying risks, yielding an out-of-sample Sharpe ratio of 1.5 to 1.8. This SDF, as well as its conditional mean and volatility, are persistent, track the business cycle and times of heightened economic uncertainty, and predict future asset returns.

Recent studies document strong empirical support for multifactor models that aim to explain the cross-sectional variation in corporate bond expected excess returns. We revisit these findings and provide evidence that common factor pricing in corporate bonds is exceedingly difficult to establish. Based on portfolio- and bond-level analyses, we demonstrate that previously proposed bond risk factors , with traded liquidity as the only marginal exception, do not have any incremental explanatory power over the corporate bond market factor. Consequently, this implies that the bond CAPM is not dominated by either traded- or nontraded-factor models in pairwise and multiple model comparison tests.

We provide empirical evidence within the context of cryptocurrency markets that the returns from liquidity provision, proxied by the returns of a short-term reversal strategy, are primarily concentrated in trading pairs with lower levels of market activity. Empirically, we focus on a moderately large cross section of cryptocurrency pairs traded against the U.S. Dollar from March 1, 2017 to March 1, 2022 on multiple centralised exchanges. Our findings suggest that expected returns from liquidity provision are amplified in smaller, more volatile, and less liquid cryptocurrency pairs where fear of adverse selection might be higher. A panel regression analysis confirms that the interaction between lagged returns and trading volume contains significant predictive information for the dynamics of cryptocurrency returns. This is consistent with theories that highlight the role of inventory risk and adverse selection for liquidity provision.