Asset Pricing without Garbage

This paper provides an explanation for why garbage implies a much lower relative risk aversion in the consumption‐based asset pricing model than National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) consumption expenditure: Unlike garbage, NIPA consumption is filtered to mitigate measurement error. I apply a simple model of the filtering process that allows one to undo the filtering inherent in NIPA consumption. “Unfiltered NIPA consumption” well explains the equity premium and is priced in the cross‐section of stock returns. I discuss the likely properties of true consumption (i.e., without measurement error and filtering) and quantify implications for habit and long‐run risk models.     

Asset Pricing with Garbage

A new measure of consumption, garbage, is more volatile and more correlated with stocks than the canonical measure, National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) consumption expenditure. A garbage‐based consumption capital asset pricing model matches the U.S. equity premium with relative risk aversion of 17 versus 81 and evades the joint equity premium‐risk‐free rate puzzle. These results carry through to European data. In a cross‐section of size, value, and industry portfolios, garbage growth is priced and drives out NIPA expenditure growth.     

Consumption Volatility Risk

We show that time variation in macroeconomic uncertainty affects asset prices. Consumption volatility is a negatively priced source of risk for a wide variety of test portfolios. At the firm level, exposure to consumption volatility risk predicts future returns, generating a spread across quintile portfolios in excess of 7% annually. This premium is explained by cross‐sectional differences in the sensitivity of dividend volatility to consumption volatility. Stocks with volatile cash flows in uncertain aggregate times require higher expected returns.     

Multi-asset portfolio optimization and out-of-sample performance: an evaluation of Black–Litterman,mean-variance,and naïve diversification approaches

The Black–Litterman model aims to enhance asset allocation decisions by overcoming the problems of mean-variance portfolio optimization. We propose a sample-based version of the Black–Litterman model and implement it on a multi-asset portfolio consisting of global stocks, bonds, and commodity indices, covering the period from January 1993 to December 2011. We test its out-of-sample performance relative to other asset allocation models and find that Black–Litterman optimized portfolios significantly outperform naïve-diversified portfolios (1/N rule and strategic weights), and consistently perform better than mean-variance, Bayes–Stein, and minimum-variance strategies in terms of out-of-sample Sharpe ratios, even after controlling for different levels of risk aversion, investment constraints, and transaction costs. The BL model generates portfolios with lower risk, less extreme asset allocations, and higher diversification across asset classes. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these advantages are due to more stable mixed return estimates that incorporate the reliability of return predictions, smaller estimation errors, and lower turnover.     

Long‐Run Risk and Its Implications for the Equity Premium Puzzle: New Evidence from a Multivariate Framework

This paper investigates the empirical evidence of long‐run risk and its implications for the equity premium puzzle. We find that the long‐run risk model is generally weakly identified and that standard inferences tend to underestimate the uncertainty of long‐run risk. We extend the LM‐type test of Ma and Nelson (2010) that remains valid under weak identification to the bivariate VARMA‐GARCH model of consumption and dividend growth. The results cast doubt on the validity of long‐run risk as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. We also evaluate the approach of Bansal, Kiku, and Yaron (2007a), which extracts long‐run risk by regressing consumption growth and its volatility on predictive variables. The results using the Bonferroni Q‐test of Campbell and Yogo (2006) suggest that consumption and dividend growth are generally unpredictable by the price‐dividend ratio and risk‐free rate. This casts doubt on the validity of the BKY approach.     

Asset pricing and energy consumption risk

This paper proposes energy consumption in the US as a new measure for the consumption capital asset pricing model. We find that (i) industrial energy growth produces reasonable values for the relative risk aversion coefficient and the implied risk-free rate; (ii) compared to alternative consumption measures, industrial energy performs well in explaining the cross-sectional variation in stock returns with the lowest implied risk aversion and pricing errors; (iii) the industrial energy consumption risk model performs equally well as the Fama–French three-factor model in the cross-sectional asset pricing tests; and (iv) total energy consumption risk is priced in the presence of the Fama–French factor risks.     

Consumption, Dividends, and the Cross Section of Equity Returns

We show that aggregate consumption risks embodied in cash flows can account for the puzzling differences in risk premia across book‐to‐market, momentum, and size‐sorted portfolios. The dynamics of aggregate consumption and cash flow growth rates, modeled as a vector autoregression, are used to measure the consumption beta of discounted cash flows. Differences in these cash flow betas account for more than 60% of the cross‐sectional variation in risk premia. The market price for risk in cash flows is highly significant. We argue that cash flow risk is important for interpreting differences in risk compensation across assets.     

Optimal Life-Cycle Asset Allocation: Understanding the Empirical Evidence

We show that a life‐cycle model with realistically calibrated uninsurable labor income risk and moderate risk aversion can simultaneously match stock market participation rates and asset allocation decisions conditional on participation. The key ingredients of the model are Epstein–Zin preferences, a fixed stock market entry cost, and moderate heterogeneity in risk aversion. Households with low risk aversion smooth earnings shocks with a small buffer stock of assets, and consequently most of them (optimally) never invest in equities. Therefore, the marginal stockholders are (endogenously) more risk averse, and as a result they do not invest their portfolios fully in stocks.     

Generalized Disappointment Aversion and Asset Prices

We characterize generalized disappointment aversion (GDA) risk preferences that can overweight lower‐tail outcomes relative to expected utility. We show in an endowment economy that recursive utility with GDA risk preferences generates effective risk aversion that is countercyclical. This feature comes from endogenous variation in the probability of disappointment in the representative agent's intertemporal consumption‐saving problem that underlies the asset pricing model. The variation in effective risk aversion produces a large equity premium and a risk‐free rate that is procyclical and has low volatility in an economy with a simple autoregressive endowment‐growth process.     

Algorithmic portfolio choice: lessons from panel survey data

Automated asset management offerings algorithmically assign risky portfolios to individual investors based on investor characteristics such as age, net income, or self-assessment of risk aversion. Using new German household panel data, we investigate the key household characteristics that drive private asset allocation decisions. This information allows us to assess which set of variables should be included in algorithmic portfolio advice. Using heavily cross-validated classification trees, we find that a combination of household balance sheet variables—describing the ability to take risks (e.g., net wealth)—and household personal characteristics—describing the willingness to take risks (e.g., risk aversion)—best explain the cross-sectional variation in household portfolio choice. Our empirical evidence is in line with models of portfolio choice under decreasing relative risk aversion and fixed investment costs. The results suggest the utility of a more holistic modeling of household characteristics. Including background risks in the form of household leverage not only makes investment sense, but is also the new regulatory reality under MIFID II rules. Robo-advisors are strongly advised to act accordingly.     

Heterogeneous Beliefs, Speculation, and the Equity Premium

Agents with heterogeneous beliefs about fundamental growth do not share risks perfectly but instead speculate with each other on the relative accuracy of their models' predictions. They face the risk that market prices move more in line with the trading models of competing agents than with their own. Less risk‐averse agents speculate more aggressively and demand higher risk premiums. My calibrated model generates countercyclical consumption volatility, earnings forecast dispersion, and cross‐sectional consumption dispersion. With a risk aversion coefficient less than one, agents' speculation causes half the observed equity premium and lowers the riskless rate by about 1%.     

Dividend Dynamics,Learning, and Expected Stock Index Returns

We present a latent variable model of dividends that predicts, out‐of‐sample, 39.5% to 41.3% of the variation in annual dividend growth rates between 1975 and 2016. Further, when learning about dividend dynamics is incorporated into a long‐run risks model, the model predicts, out‐of‐sample, 25.3% to 27.1% of the variation in annual stock index returns over the same time horizon, with learning contributing approximately half of the predictability in returns. These findings support the view that investors' aversion to long‐run risks and their learning about these risks are important in determining stock index prices and expected returns.     

Risks for the Long Run: A Potential Resolution of Asset Pricing Puzzles

We model consumption and dividend growth rates as containing (1) a small long‐run predictable component, and (2) fluctuating economic uncertainty (consumption volatility). These dynamics, for which we provide empirical support, in conjunction with Epstein and Zin's (1989) preferences, can explain key asset markets phenomena. In our economy, financial markets dislike economic uncertainty and better long‐run growth prospects raise equity prices. The model can justify the equity premium, the risk‐free rate, and the volatility of the market return, risk‐free rate, and the price–dividend ratio. As in the data, dividend yields predict returns and the volatility of returns is time‐varying.     

Diversification and Its Discontents: Idiosyncratic and Entrepreneurial Risk in the Quest for Social Status

Social status concerns influence investors' decisions by driving a wedge in attitudes toward aggregate and idiosyncratic risks. I model such concerns by emphasizing the desire to “get ahead of the Joneses,” which implies that aversion to idiosyncratic risk is lower than aversion to aggregate risk. The model predicts that investors hold concentrated portfolios in equilibrium, which helps rationalize the small premium for undiversified entrepreneurial risk. In the model, status concerns are more important for wealthier households. Consequently, these households own a disproportionate share of risky assets, particularly private equity, and experience greater volatility of consumption, consistent with empirical evidence.     

Disclosure Risk and Price Drift

Disclosures play an apparently critical role in the empirical regularity of the short‐run momentum and long‐run reversal in stock returns. Motivated by this evidence, this paper integrates an analysis of disclosures within an asset pricing model to arrive at a framework in which disclosures and asset returns are jointly determined. Disclosures resolve uncertainty, but the increased information flow also raises the risks during the disclosure period. When disclosures and asset returns are modeled jointly, apparently good news is associated with the upward revision of future disclosure risks. The model generates predictions that have the outward appearance of short‐run momentum and long‐run reversal.     

Idiosyncratic Consumption Risk and the Cross Section of Asset Returns

This paper investigates the importance of idiosyncratic consumption risk for the cross‐sectional variation in asset returns. We find that besides the rate of aggregate consumption growth, the cross‐sectional variance of consumption growth is also a priced factor. This suggests that consumers are not fully insured against idiosyncratic consumption risk, and that asset returns reflect their attempts to reduce their exposure to this risk. The resulting two‐factor consumption‐based asset pricing model significantly outperforms the CAPM, and its performance compares favorably with that of the Fama–French three‐factor model.     

International asset returns and exchange rates

We present a consumption-based international asset-pricing model to study global equity premiums, the US riskfree rate and the cross section of international asset returns. The model entails idiosyncratic, country-specific consumption risk, which helps explain the magnitude of global equity premiums. It also features country-specific habit formation, which helps explain the level of the interest rate on the US short-term Treasury bills traded by domestic and international investors. We find that the model explains approximately 40–50% of the cross section of currency and equity premiums as well as expected returns from value and growth portfolios of at least a dozen countries. Changes in real exchange rates are responsible for explaining approximately half of the cross section of international asset returns.     

Consumption risk and the cross-section of government bond returns

In this paper we provide a consumption-based explanation of risk in nominal US Treasury bond portfolios. We use a consumption-CAPM with Epstein–Zin–Weil recursive preferences. Our model introduces two sources of risk: uncertainty about current consumption (reflected in contemporaneous consumption growth) and uncertainty about prospects of consumption in a long run (reflected in innovations to expectations about future consumption growth). We use a novel approach to estimate pricing factors in our model: we employ a factor-augmented VAR model with common factors, extracted from a large panel of macroeconomic and financial data, as state variables. We find that the important source of risk in US bonds is related to uncertainty in prospects in future consumption and it induces a positive and significant risk premium. We find as well that covariance risk related to innovations in expectations about future consumption growth is greater for long term bond portfolios than for short term bond portfolios, which is consistent with a duration measure of risk and justifies why long term bonds require greater premium than short term bonds. Our model explains well the cross-sectional variation in average excess returns of bonds with different maturities over the period 1975–2011 and compares favorably with competing models.     

C-CAPM Refinements and the Cross-Section of Returns

This paper studies if the consumption-based asset pricing model can explain the cross-section of expected returns. The CRRA model and several refinements (habit persistence and idiosyncratic shocks) all imply that the conditional expected return is linearly increasing in the asset’s conditional covariance with consumption growth. Results from quarterly data on the 25 Fama-French portfolios suggest that the model has serious problems: there are large and systematic pricing errors. In addition, the estimated time-varying effective risk aversion coefficients appear implausible and are unrelated with most candidates for habit persistence and idiosyncratic risk.     

Time‐Varying Risk–Return Trade‐off in the Stock Market

We uncover a strong comovement of the stock market risk–return trade‐off with the consumption–wealth ratio (CAY). The finding reflects time‐varying investment opportunities rather than countercyclical aggregate relative risk aversion. Specifically, the partial risk–return trade‐off is positive and constant when we control for CAY as a proxy for investment opportunities. Moreover, conditional market variance scaled by CAY is negatively priced in the cross‐section of stock returns. Our results are consistent with a limited stock market participation model, in which shareholders require an illiquidity premium that increases with CAY, in addition to the risk premium that is proportional to conditional market variance.