Search results

This paper examines the implications of standard barter models of market equilibrium for financial security returns in New Zealand. The key question addressed is: does the ‘equity premium puzzle’ of Mehra and Prescott (1985) found in the U.S. also hold in ?ew Zealand? To examine the existence of the equity premium puzzle, quarterly financial security returns and consumption data are examined from 1965 to 1997 to calibrate parameters in the Consumption Based Asset Pricing Model. Unlike much of the existing international evidence, this paper corrects for durable goods consumption following the assumptions of the model that all consumption be consumed in a given period. Numerical analyses indicate that the class of models examined are unable to generate equity premia consistent with historical estimates of the equity premium in New Zealand. Due to small sample variability however, while this discrepancy is material in size, the result is not statistically significant.

The purpose of this paper is to use some of the contributions of the option pricing theory to solve three outstanding puzzles in finance: the underdiversification puzzle, the volatility puzzle and the equity premium puzzle.

To approach the issue, this paper considers the applications of the option pricing theory to both sides of the corporate balance sheet. Applications to the left-hand side of the balance sheet has led to the real options theory that has expressed the value of a capital budgeting project as the sum of the values of its “discounted cash flow (DCF) method” and “real options.” This paper argues that, because the balance sheet must balance, the value of equity, which appears on the right-hand side of the balance sheet, should also be expressed as the sum of the values of its “DCF method” and “equity options.”

This proposed model of equity valuation solves the three outstanding puzzles in finance: the underdiversification puzzle, the volatility puzzle and the equity premium puzzle.

This study may not be able to explain the full extent of the three puzzles.

The dividend discount model of equity valuation needs to be augmented by an option component.

The community of finance scholars will become more confident of their scholarly work because three puzzles will be solved to a great extent.

To the best of author’s knowledge, the extant literature does not either solve any single one of the three puzzles through the contributions of option pricing theory or solve all three puzzles at the same time with a single solution. The originality of this paper is that it makes both of these contributions to the extant literature.

In recent years, equity premiums have been unusually large and efforts to forecast them have been largely unsuccessful. This paper presents evidence suggesting that artificial neural networks (ANNs) outperform traditional statistical methods and can forecast equity premiums reasonably well.

This study replicates out‐of‐sample estimates of regression using ANN with economic fundamentals as inputs. The theory states that recent large equity premium values cannot be explained (the equity premium puzzle).

The dividend yield variable was found to produce the best out‐of‐sample forecasts for equity premium.

Although the equity premium puzzle can be partly explained by fundamentals, they do not imply immediate policy prescriptions since all forecasting techniques including ANN are susceptible to joint assumptions of the techniques and the models used.

This result is useful in capital asset pricing model and in asset allocation decisions.

Unlike the findings from previous research that are unable to explain equity premium behavior, this paper suggests that equity premium can be reasonably forecasted.

Myopic loss aversion, or the combination of loss aversion and frequent portfolio evaluation, has been argued to possibly be one of the factors behind the equity premium puzzle. The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative systematic test that looks at the relationship between inflation and equity premium to test for this theory.

Inflation and equity premium tends to be positively associated, both in standard rational-agents theoretical models and in simple empirical measures of correlation. Nonetheless, under the presence of nominal return evaluation, behavioral models such as myopic loss aversion do predict a negative causal relationship between those variables. This study aims to check this negative causal relationship. The identification strategy combines elements of two approaches: fixed effects regression on short-term returns and long-term least squares regression. As both methods have different strengths and weaknesses, and use different sources of data variation to compute their estimators, it is argued that the combination of these approaches provides a better identification strategy than each individual method.

This paper finds evidence for a negative relationship between inflation and equity premium in both methods, which supports myopic loss aversion theory. The magnitude of the coefficients is also relevant ranging from −0.23 to −0.80. However, it is also shown that these effects explain only a small part of equity premium observed variation, and are more prevalent in non-industrialized countries, which limits the scope of the theory.

The current method for testing myopic loss aversion theory is overly reliant on experimental evidence collected in the lab to estimate behavioral parameters and simulations. The authors complement these by providing an empirical study.

I survey applications of Markov switching models to the asset pricing and portfolio choice literatures. In particular, I discuss the potential that Markov switching models have to fit financial time series and at the same time provide powerful tools to test hypotheses formulated in the light of financial theories, and to generate positive economic value, as measured by risk-adjusted performances, in dynamic asset allocation applications. The chapter also reviews the role of Markov switching dynamics in modern asset pricing models in which the no-arbitrage principle is used to characterize the properties of the fundamental pricing measure in the presence of regimes.

The purpose of this paper is to report new original evidence on optimal holding periods and optimal asset allocations (Benartzi and Thaler, 1995).

The authors employ a number of different value functions, a recent dataset, different markets, and varying investment horizons.

The authors report original evidence across markets and over-time, employing different value functions and varying investment horizons. The results results indicate that, during the past decades, the optimal holding period (seven months during the whole period and four/five months during crises) is not affected by the value function employed, is in accordance with the Myopic Loss Aversion hypothesis, is consistent across markets, but is sensitive to economic crises and shorter to that reported in Benartzi and Thaler (12 months). The optimal asset allocation is also different to that of Benartzi and Thaler during crises periods and/or assuming value functions with probability distortion.

The paper employs a number of different value functions, with and without probability distortion; it compares investor behavior in three important international markets (USA, UK, Germany); as a further robustness test the authors use various investment horizons.

The aim of this paper is to identify why the historically observed equity risk premium is larger than most researchers believe is reasonable. Whilst equity is undoubtedly riskier than government issued securities, the extent of the realised premium on equity has been characterised as a “puzzle”.

This paper measures the equity premium for a number of countries over the past 132 years, and then uses a pooled cross‐section and time‐series analysis to investigate the relationship between the equity premium and inflation.

This paper shows that the equity premium over the past 132 years has been significantly positively related to the rate of inflation and, therefore, has resulted in an equity premium that is substantially higher in the post 1914 period than before. This effect results from the relative performance of bonds and stocks during inflationary periods. The relatively poor performance of bonds during periods of inflation drives much of the equity premium.

Counterfactual simulations in the paper show that the average equity premium post 1914 would have been 4.61 per cent and not 7.34 per cent had the rate of inflation been zero. This is much closer to theoretically derived estimates.

The size of the equity premium has implications for investors' asset allocation decision. The importance of inflation suggests that in a low inflation environment, the expected equity premium will be considerably lower than the historically realised equity premium.

This paper establishes a clear link between the rate of inflation and the equity premium.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether self‐managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustees earn: the equity risk premium or any premium to the riskless rate of interest.

Using a sample of 100 SMSFs, the average annual returns since inception of the funds in the sample are compared with: the average annual equity risk premium since that time and the average yield of Commonwealth Government Securities since that time.

The investigation reveals: the SMSFs in the sample do not earn the equity risk premium and the SMSFs in the sample did not earn a premium to riskless rate of interest. This leads to the conclusion that the SMSFs have borne risk without commensurate reward. Research limitations/implications – The trustees' rationale for making particular investment decisions and the consistency of the portfolio structures with the risk profiles of the trustees are two areas that may be fruitfully explored in future research.

For SMSF trustees, a simple portfolio that divides assets between (unmanaged) index funds and risk‐free securities on the basis of trustees' risk aversion may generate better results than the existing portfolios. For policy makers, the relatively poor performance of SMSFs implies that the superannuation system as currently structured may not be generating returns that will maximize retirement incomes.

The paper provides the first comparison of SMSF returns with the equity risk premium and the riskless rate of interest measured at appropriate horizons.

Mehra and Prescott (1985) point out that it is difficult to reconcile certain empirical facts about equity and debt returns and the process of consumption growth with reasonable assumptions about the relative rate of risk aversion and the pure rate of time preference, in a conventional infinite-horizon model with an additively separable, constant relative rate of risk aversion (CRRA) utility function. The present note adds the further puzzle that if the mean rate of growth of consumption is not known with perfect certainty in such a model, both stocks and real perpetuities have an infinite price in terms of consumption goods. When maturity-specific claims on real output are introduced, the equity premium is seen to increase without bound at the most distant horizons. These in turn dominate asset pricing, so that the equity premium on claims on all future output is indeed infinite.

In this paper, it is argued that previous estimates of the expected cost of equity and the expected arithmetic risk premium in the UK show a degree of upward bias. Given the importance of the risk premium in regulatory cost of capital in the UK, this has important policy implications. There are three reasons why previous estimates could be upward biased. The first two arise from the comparison of estimates of the realised returns on government bond (‘gilt’) with those of the realised and expected returns on equities. These estimates are frequently used to infer a risk premium relative to either the current yield on index‐linked gilts or an ‘adjusted’ current yield measure. This is incorrect on two counts; first, inconsistent estimates of the risk‐free rate are implied on the right hand side of the capital asset pricing model; second, they compare the realised returns from a bond that carried inflation risk with the realised and expected returns from equities that may be expected to have at least some protection from inflation risk. The third, and most important, source of bias arises from uplifts to expected returns. If markets exhibit ‘excess volatility’, or f part of the historical return arises because of revisions to expected future cash flows, then estimates of variance derived from the historical returns or the price growth must be used with great care when uplifting average expected returns to derive simple discount rates. Adjusting expected returns for the effect of such biases leads to lower expected cost of equity and risk premia than those that are typically quoted.