Merton (1973) in his seminal article ‘Theory of Rational Option Pricing’ showed that the rationally determined price of a call option is a non-decreasing function of the ‘riskness’ of its associated common stock. In deriving his results, Merton made restrictive assumptions about the way the market prices payoff distributions, and used the Rothschild-Stiglitz (1970) measure to compare the riskiness of securities. I show by means of an example that the Merton result will not in general be true. I then derive a sufficient condition for the option on one stock to have higher market value than the option on another stock, when both the stocks have the same price, and explain why the Merton result is valid in the Black-Scholes environment.

ABSTRACT In this paper we extend the multigood futures pricing model of Grauer and Litzenberger [9] to a dynamic discrete time setting. We then test the model using data on futures prices for corn, wheat, and soybeans. The parameter estimates we obtain are similar to those obtained by other researchers using stock return data. The model itself is rejected and we offer some suggestions as to which assumption may be violated. We also give an interpretation to the Hansen‐Singleton nonlinear instrumental variables estimation technique used in our empirical work.

It is well documented that stock prices on ex-dividend days drop by less than the value of the dividend, on average. This has commonly been attributed to the effect of tax clienteles. We examine data from the Hong Kong stock market, where neither dividends nor capital gains are taxed. As in the U.S., the average stock price drop is less than the value of the dividend; specifically, the average dividend for the period 1980–1993 is HK 0.12 and the average price drop is HK 0.06. We are able to account for this both theoretically and empirically through market microstructure arguments.

We show that several asset pricing models that rely on long-run risks imply that the state of the economy can be captured by factors derived from the price-dividend ratios of stock portfolios. We find two factors with small growth and large value tilts are important for this purpose, thereby relating the Fama-French model and the Bansal-Yaron and Merton intertemporal asset pricing models. As predicted by the model, these price-dividend ratio factors track consumption volatility and predict future consumption and stock dividends, and the covariance of returns with their innovations explains the cross-section of average returns of several stock portfolios. (JEL G19)

This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations—some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts that such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield—not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop has been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.

[This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations--some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts that such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield--not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop has been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.]

ABSTRACT When consumption betas of stocks are computed using year‐over‐year consumption growth based upon the fourth quarter, the consumption‐based asset pricing model (CCAPM) explains the cross‐section of stock returns as well as the Fama and French (1993) three‐factor model. The CCAPM's performance deteriorates substantially when consumption growth is measured based upon other quarters. For the CCAPM to hold at any given point in time, investors must make their consumption and investment decisions simultaneously at that point in time. We suspect that this is more likely to happen during the fourth quarter, given investors' tax year ends in December.

ABSTRACT Green and Hollifield (1992) argue that the presence of a dominant factor would result in extreme negative weights in mean‐variance efficient portfolios even in the absence of estimation errors. In that case, imposing no‐short‐sale constraints should hurt, whereas empirical evidence is often to the contrary. We reconcile this apparent contradiction. We explain why constraining portfolio weights to be nonnegative can reduce the risk in estimated optimal portfolios even when the constraints are wrong. Surprisingly, with no‐short‐sale constraints in place, the sample covariance matrix performs as well as covariance matrix estimates based on factor models, shrinkage estimators, and daily data.