To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
6 results

A Liquidity-Based Theory of Closed-End Funds

Review of Financial Studies 2009 22(1), 257-297
[This paper develops a rational, liquidity-based model of closed-end funds (CEFs) that provides an economic motivation for the existence of this organizational form: They offer a means for investors to buy illiquid securities, without facing the potential costs associated with direct trading and without the externalities imposed by an open-end fund structure. Our theory predicts the patterns observed in CEF initial public offerings (IPOs) and the observed behavior of the CEF discount, which results from a trade-off between the liquidity benefits of investing in the CEF and the fees charged by the fund's managers. In particular, the model explains why IPOs occur in waves in certain sectors at a time, why funds are issued at a premium to net asset value (NAV), and why they later usually trade at a discount. We also conduct an empirical investigation, which, overall, provides more support for a liquidity-based model than for an alternative sentiment-based explanation.]

Asset-Level Risk and Return in Real Estate Investments

Review of Financial Studies 2021 34(8), 3647-3694
Abstract In stark contrast with liquid asset returns, commercial real estate idiosyncratic return means and variances do not scale with the holding period, even after accounting for all cash flow-relevant events. This puzzling phenomenon survives controlling for vintage effects, systematic risk heterogeneity, and a host of other explanations. To explain the findings, I derive an equilibrium search-based asset-pricing model that, when calibrated, provides an excellent fit to transactions data. A structural model of transaction risk seems crucial to understanding real estate price dynamics. These insights extend to other highly illiquid asset classes, such as private equity and residential real estate.

A Liquidity-Based Theory of Closed-End Funds

Review of Financial Studies 2009 22(1), 257-297
This paper develops a rational, liquidity-based model of closed-end funds (CEFs) that provides an economic motivation for the existence of this organizational form: They offer a means for investors to buy illiquid securities, without facing the potential costs associated with direct trading and without the externalities imposed by an open-end fund structure. Our theory predicts the patterns observed in CEF initial public offerings (IPOs) and the observed behavior of the CEF discount, which results from a trade-off between the liquidity benefits of investing in the CEF and the fees charged by the fund's managers. In particular, the model explains why IPOs occur in waves in certain sectors at a time, why funds are issued at a premium to net asset value (NAV), and why they later usually trade at a discount. We also conduct an empirical investigation, which, overall, provides more support for a liquidity-based model than for an alternative sentiment-based explanation.

Managed Distribution Policies in Closed-End Funds and Shareholder Activism

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2014 49(5-6), 1311-1337
Abstract In closed-end funds, a managed distribution policy (MDP) is a dividend commitment potentially requiring the liquidation of assets. We argue that MDPs lower managerial claims on fund assets and, when the fund is at a discount, increase shareholder value. This transfer of wealth can be rationalized by managers wishing to deter a challenge from activist shareholders through a costly proxy vote. We find strong empirical evidence that managers respond to the presence of activists using MDPs, that MDPs constitute an effective wealth transfer to shareholders, and that activists are less likely to challenge management when an MDP is in place.

Estimating Oil Risk Factors Using Information from Equity and Derivatives Markets

Journal of Finance 2015 70(2), 769-804
ABSTRACT We introduce a novel approach to estimating latent oil risk factors and establish their significance in pricing nonoil securities. Our model, which features four factors with simple economic interpretations, is estimated using both derivative prices and oil‐related equity returns. The fit is excellent in and out of sample. The extracted oil factors carry significant risk premia, and are significantly related to macroeconomic variables as well as portfolio returns sorted on characteristics and industry. The average nonoil portfolio exhibits a sensitivity to the oil factors amounting to a sixth (in magnitude) of that of the oil industry itself.