Disagreement and asset prices

How do differences of opinion affect asset prices? Do investors earn a risk premium when disagreement arises in the market? Despite their fundamental importance, these questions are among the most controversial issues in finance. In this paper, we use a novel data set that allows us to directly measure the level of disagreement among Wall Street mortgage dealers about prepayment speeds. We examine how disagreement evolves over time and study its effects on expected returns, return volatility, and trading volume in the mortgage-backed security market. We find that increased disagreement is associated with higher expected returns, higher return volatility, and larger trading volume. These results imply that there is a positive risk premium for disagreement in asset prices. We also show that volatility in and of itself does not lead to higher trading volume. Instead, only when disagreement arises in the market is higher uncertainty associated with more trading. Finally, we are able to distinguish empirically between two competing hypotheses regarding how information in markets gets incorporated into asset prices. We find that sophisticated investors appear to update their beliefs through a rational expectations mechanism when disagreement arises.     

Leverage constraints and asset prices: Insights from mutual fund risk taking

Prior theory suggests that time variation in the degree to which leverage constraints bind affects the pricing kernel. We propose a measure for this leverage constraint tightness by inverting the argument that constrained investors tilt their portfolios to riskier assets. We show that the average market beta of actively managed mutual funds—intermediaries facing leverage restrictions—captures their desire for leverage and thus the tightness of constraints. Consistent with theory, it strongly predicts returns of the betting-against-beta portfolio, and is a priced risk factor in the cross-section of mutual funds and stocks. Funds with low exposure to the factor outperform high-exposure funds by 5% annually, and for stocks this difference reaches 7%. Our results show that the tightness of leverage constraints has important implications for asset prices.     

Fundamentals and bubbles in asset prices: Evidence from U.S. and Japanese asset prices

This paper investigates the existence and extent of non-fundamental bubbles in both U.S. and Japanese asset prices by employing a flexible empirical method which allows us to decompose asset prices into fundamental and non-fundamental bubble components. This study finds that a substantial fraction of U.S. and Japanese asset prices is accounted for by non-fundamental bubble components and that these asset prices overreact to non-fundamental bubble shocks. In addition, allowing for time-varying interest rates as another fundamental factor does not change any qualitative results about the role of non-fundamental bubble components. This suggests that the present value model fails to explain volatile asset price behavior even with time-varying interest rates. This paper was initially written when I was visiting Keio University in Japan. I benefited from several discussions with Mike Dothan, Pat Hess, and Steve LeRoy in my department, Takashi Kaneko, Yukitami Tsuji and Naoyuki Yoshino at Keio University, and Yong-Seok Park at the International University of Japan. Special thanks are due to the anonymous referee and the editor of this journal, who provided many useful and insightful comments that helped to improve the paper. This research was in part supported by a grant from the International Program Development.     

Margin requirements and equilibrium asset prices

This paper studies the effect of margin requirements on asset prices and trading volume in a general equilibrium asset pricing model where Epstein-Zin investors differ in their degree of risk aversion. Under the assumptions of unit intertemporal elasticity of substitution and zero net supply of riskless assets, I show analytically that binding margin requirements do not affect stock prices. This result stands in contrast to previous partial equilibrium analysis where fixed margin requirements increase the volatility of stock prices. In this framework, binding margin requirements induce a fall in the riskless rate, increase its volatility, and increase stock trading volume.     

A tale of two prices: Liquidity and asset prices in multiple markets

This paper investigates the liquidity effect in asset pricing by studying the liquidity–premium relationship of an American depositary receipt (ADR) and its underlying share. Using the [Amihud, Yakov, 2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31–56] measure, the turnover ratio and trading infrequency as proxies for liquidity, we show that a higher ADR premium is associated with higher ADR liquidity and lower home share liquidity, in terms of changes in these variables. We find that the liquidity effects remain strong after we control for firm size and a number of country characteristics, such as the expected change in the foreign exchange rate, the stock market performance, as well as several variables measuring the openness and transparency of the home market.     

A note on asset management and market risk

The textbook view on risk in asset management companies is summarized by Hull (Risk Management and Financial Institutions, p. 372, 2007): “For an asset manager the greatest risk is operational risk.” Using evidence from various panel regression models, we show that asset management revenues carry substantial market risks, a finding that challenges not only academic risk management literature on the predominance of operative risks, but also the current industry practice of not hedging market risks that are systematically built into the revenue-generation process. For asset management companies to return to an annuity model, these risks need to be managed more actively. Shareholders do not want to be exposed to market beta by investing in asset management companies; they want to participate in these companies’ alpha generation and take advantage of their fund-gathering expertise as financial intermediaries.     

Global asset prices and FOMC announcements

This paper analyzes the impact of U.S. monetary policy announcement surprises on foreign equity indexes, short- and long-term interest rates, and exchange rates in 49 countries. We use two proxies for monetary policy surprises: the surprise change to the current target federal funds rate (target surprise) and the revision to the expected path of future monetary policy (path surprise). We find that different asset classes respond to different components of the monetary policy surprises. Global equity indexes respond mainly to the target surprise; exchange rates and long-term interest rates respond mainly to the path surprise; and short-term interest rates respond to both surprises. On average, a hypothetical surprise 25-basis-point cut in the federal funds target rate is associated with about a 1 percent increase in foreign equity indexes and a 5 basis point decline in foreign short-term interest rates. A surprise 25-basis-point downward revision in the expected path of future policy is associated with about a ½ percent decline in the exchange value of the dollar against foreign currencies and 5 and 8 basis point declines in short- and long-term interest rates, respectively. We also find that asset prices’ responses to FOMC announcements vary greatly across countries, and that these cross-country variations in the response are related to a country’s exchange rate regime. Equity indexes and interest rates in countries with a less flexible exchange rate regime respond more to U.S. monetary policy surprises. In addition, the cross-country variation in the equity market response is strongly related to the percentage of each country’s equity market capitalization owned by U.S. investors. This result suggests that investors’ asset holdings may play a role in transmitting monetary policy surprises across countries.     

Intergenerational risksharing and equilibrium asset prices

In the presence of overlapping generations, a social security system, with contingent taxes and benefits, can affect both asset prices and intergenerational risksharing. In a simple model with two risky factors of production—human capital, owned by the young, and physical capital, owned by all older generations—a social security system that optimally shares risks exposes future generations to a share of the risk in physical capital. Such a system reduces precautionary saving and increases the riskbearing capacity of the economy. Under plausible conditions it increases the riskless interest rate, and lowers the price and risk premium of physical capital.     

Hidden persistent disasters and asset prices

This study analyzes the effects of agents’ learning about hidden persistent economic disasters on asset prices. In this study, it is assumed that aggregate consumption follows a hidden Markov regime-switching process and a representative agent infers the current regime, normal regime, or disaster regime, sequentially from the realized path of the past consumption process. In this setting, the fluctuation in the agent’s posterior probabilities of the disaster regime augments the volatility of equity returns. By utilizing the stochastic differential utility, this study demonstrates that the current model can help resolve many asset pricing puzzles including the equity premium puzzle, equity volatility puzzle, and risk-free rate puzzle simultaneously. Further, the current model predicts the counter-cyclical pattern in the equity premium and equity-return volatility on the normal regime, although asset returns are negative and highly volatile during disasters. The study also demonstrates that, if the agent’s preferences are restricted to time-additive power utility, the consideration of hidden persistent disasters deepens the asset pricing puzzles.     

Liquidity and asset prices: A new monetarist approach

When lenders cannot force borrowers to repay debts, assets are often pledged to secure loans. In this paper borrowers lose collateral once they renege on debts, and exclusion of defaulters occurs probabilistically, with a higher probability implying better enforcement. Increased efficiency in enforcement reduces asset prices, while raising loan-to-value ratios. If the rise in loan-to-value ratios is the dominant effect, aggregate liquidity and output increase with the advance in enforcement. Inflation raises the repayment cost by increasing the loan rate, while raising the default cost through exclusion. Consequently, inflation raises loan-to-value ratios and output only when enforcement is sufficiently efficient.