Pricing deviation,misvaluation comovement,and macroeconomic conditions

We measure an individual stock’s misvaluation based on the deviation of its price from predicted intrinsic value. Both under- and overvalued stocks identified by this misvaluation measure exhibit greater valuation uncertainty and arbitrage difficulty, and the misvaluation measure strongly predicts stock returns incremental to size, book-to-market ratio, past returns, and various return anomalies. Based on the misvaluation measure, we form a misvaluation factor and find that stock return covariances with this factor possess significant and robust return predictive power. We further show that the misvaluation factor predicts future economic conditions, providing additional insight into the real effect of systematic misvaluation in the stock market.     

Institutional investors: Arbitrageurs or rational trend chasers

This paper studies the relationship between institutional investor holdings and stock misvaluation in the U.S. between 1980 and 2010. I find that institutional investors overweigh overvalued and underweigh undervalued stocks in their portfolio, taking the market portfolio as a benchmark. Cross-sectionally, institutional investors hold more overvalued stocks than undervalued stocks. The time-series studies also show that institutional ownership of overvalued portfolios increases as the portfolios' degree of overvaluation. As an investment strategy, institutional investors' ride of stock misvaluation is neither driven by the fund flows from individual investors into institutions, nor industry-specific. Consistent with the agency problem explanation, investment companies and independent investment advisors have a higher tendency to ride stock misvaluation than other institutions. There is weak evidence that institutional investors make a profit by riding stock misvaluation. My findings challenge the models that view individual investors as noise traders and disregard the role of institutional investors in stock market misvaluation.     

Fiscal Adjustment and Inflation Targeting in Less Developed Countries

Inflation targeting may not be viable in less developed countries (LDCs) where policymakers rely too heavily on cuts in infrastructure investment to balance the budget. Using a mix of analytical and numerical methods, we demonstrate that the equilibrium ceases to be saddle point stable under active policy when infrastructure cuts account for 30–70% of fiscal adjustment and the return on infrastructure exceeds a comparatively low threshold value. The result is robust to the form of the Taylor rule, the degree of real wage flexibility, the initial level of debt, the choice of a balanced‐budget or debt‐targeting rule, and the q‐elasticity of private investment spending.     

Uncertainty or Misvaluation? New Evidence on Determinants of Merger Activity from the Banking Industry

We use data from the past 30 years of takeover activity in the U.S. banking industry to test competing neoclassical and misvaluation merger theories. Test results are consistent with evidence in the literature that merger activity is significantly related to both structural industry change and stock price misvaluation. Our primary contribution is to show that changes in misvaluation reflect a rise in industry‐wide risk taking and that increases in risk originate from changes in industry structure due to deregulation. A measure of bank risk taking subsumes the power of stock price misvaluation to explain subsequent merger activity.     

Durable Goods,Investment Shocks,and the Comovement Problem

Sticky‐price models suggest that capital investment shocks are an important driver of business cycle fluctuations. Despite quantitative importance in explaining business cycles, a comovement problem emerges because the shocks generate intertemporal substitution effects away from consumption toward investment. This paper resolves the problem by extending the standard sticky‐price model to a two‐sector model with consumer durable services. When durable goods are used as investment in capital and consumer durables, positive capital investment shocks also generate intratemporal substitution effects away from consumer durable services toward nondurable consumption that dominates intertemporal effects. Consequently, consumption increases, and the comovement problem is resolved.     

Does Investor Misvaluation Drive the Takeover Market?

This paper uses pre‐offer market valuations to evaluate the misvaluation and Q theories of takeovers. Bidder and target valuations (price‐to‐book, or price‐to‐residual‐income‐model‐value) are related to means of payment, mode of acquisition, premia, target hostility, offer success, and bidder and target announcement‐period returns. The evidence is broadly consistent with both hypotheses. The evidence for the Q hypothesis is stronger in the pre‐1990 period than in the 1990–2000 period, whereas the evidence for the misvaluation hypothesis is stronger in the 1990–2000 period than in the pre‐1990 period.     

Does market misvaluation help explain share market long‐run underperformance following a seasoned equity issue?

We examine the relation between pre‐seasoned equity offering (SEO) announcement date misvaluation and long‐run post‐SEO performance for a large sample of Australian SEOs made between 1993 and 2001. Our study is motivated by inconsistent findings across countries with respect to the SEO long‐run underperformance anomaly first documented in the USA, inconclusive findings with respect to the hypothesis that managers exploit market misvaluation when timing equity issues, and a recent Australian Stock Exchange proposal to loosen SEO regulation. We find SEO firms underperform common share market benchmarks for up to 5 years after the announcement. Using a residual income valuation method, we show that this underperformance is related to pre‐announcement date misvaluation. An unexpected result is that underperformance and misvaluation are more severe for private placements than rights issues. Institutional factors unique to the Australian setting, particularly the large number of smaller loss‐making firms among private placement issuers, appear to explain the poorer performance of placement firms. Our results are robust to various measurement methods and assumptions, and demonstrate the importance of researching SEO performance in alternative institutional settings.     

The Happiness Trade‐Off between Unemployment and Inflation

Unemployment and inflation lower well‐being. The macroeconomist Arthur Okun characterized the negative effects of unemployment and inflation by the misery index—the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. This paper makes use of a large European data set, covering the period 1975–2013, to estimate happiness equations in which an individual subjective measure of life satisfaction is regressed against unemployment and inflation rate (controlling for personal characteristics, country, and year fixed effects). We find, conventionally, that both higher unemployment and higher inflation lower well‐being. We also discover that unemployment depresses well‐being more than inflation. We characterize this well‐being trade‐off between unemployment and inflation using what we describe as the misery ratio. Our estimates with European data imply that a 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate lowers well‐being by more than five times as much as a 1 percentage point increase in the inflation rate.     

Accounting Measurement Basis, Market Mispricing, and Firm Investment Efficiency

In this paper, we investigate how the accounting measurement basis affects the capital market pricing of a firm's shares, which, in turn, affects the efficiency of the firm's investment decisions. We distinguish two broad bases for accounting measurements: input‐based and output‐based accounting. We argue that the structural difference in the two measurement bases leads to a systematic difference in the efficiency of the investment decisions. In particular, we show that an output‐based measure has a natural advantage in aligning investment incentives because of its comprehensiveness. The (first‐)best investment is achieved when the output‐based measure is noiseless and manipulation free. In addition, under an output‐based measure, more accounting noise/manipulation always leads to more inefficient investment choices. Therefore, if an output‐based accounting measure is highly noisy and easy to manipulate in practice, the induced investment efficiency can be quite low. On the other hand, an input‐based accounting measure, while not as comprehensive, may induce more efficient investment decisions than an output‐based measure if some noise is unavoidable in either measure. The reason is twofold. First, input‐based measures may be associated with less noise and limited manipulation in practice. Second, and more importantly, we show that under an input‐based measure, a slight increase in accounting noise/manipulation may lead to more efficient investment choices. In fact, the (first‐)best result is achieved when the noise/manipulability is small but positive. In other words, for an input‐based measure, being less comprehensive makes small but positive accounting noise/manipulability desirable. Two extensions of the basic model are also explored.     

The irreversibility premium

When investment is irreversible, theory suggests that firms will be “reluctant to invest.” This reluctance creates a wedge between the discount rate guiding investment decisions and the standard Jorgensonian user cost (adjusted for risk). We use the intertemporal tradeoff between benefits and costs of changing the capital stock to estimate this wedge, which we label the irreversibility premium. Estimates are based on panel data for the period 1980-2001. The large dataset allows us to estimate the effects of limited resale markets, low depreciation rates, high uncertainty, and negative industry-wide shocks on the irreversibility premium. Our estimates provide a readily interpretable measure of the importance of irreversibility and document that the irreversibility premium is both economically and statistically significant.     

Stock Market Valuation,Foreign Investment,and Cross-Country Arbitrage

This study investigates the role of stock market valuation and cross-country arbitrage in shaping foreign direct and indirect investments, contingent upon a country's stage of development. This paper is built upon the mispricing-driven foreign investment hypotheses developed by Baker, Foley, and Wurgler (2009). Interesting findings emerge when developed and emerging markets are considered separately. Empirical evidence indicates that the use of relatively cheap financial capital for foreign investment is prominent among developed countries, but not so in emerging markets. This is largely due to the extremely low level of foreign investment outflows in emerging markets and the inability of unsophisticated emerging market managers to successfully time the market. Further investigation shows that host-country stock market valuation is an important determinant of the mode of foreign investment; investors tend to choose indirect or portfolio investment, as opposed to direct investment, when the stock market is perceived to be undervalued. This is especially the case in emerging markets, where there is more room for misvaluation and potential arbitrage. These findings suggest that the unique institutional features of the markets involved play an important role in shaping foreign investment and cross-country arbitrage.     

The Effect of Fiduciary Standards on Institutions' Preference for Dividend‐Paying Stocks

Many researchers apparently believe that some institutional investors prefer dividend‐paying stocks because they are subject to the “prudent man” (PM) standard of fiduciary responsibility, under which dividend payments provide prima facie evidence that an investment is prudent. Although this was once accurate for many institutions, during the 1990s most states replaced the PM standard with the less‐stringent “prudent investor” (PI) rule, which evaluates the appropriateness of each investment in a portfolio context. Controlling for the general decline in dividend‐paying stocks, we find that institutions reduced their holdings of dividend‐paying stocks by 2% to 3% as the PI standard spread during the 1990s. Studies of asset pricing and corporate governance should no longer consider dividend payments when evaluating the actions of institutional investors.     

KEIRETSU AFFILIATION AND STOCK‐MARKET‐DRIVEN ACQUISITIONS

We examine misvaluation as a driver of takeover activity in Japan. Mirroring empirical results from the United States, we find that overvaluation is an important factor affecting the dichotomy between acquirers and nonacquirers in Japan. Being affiliated to a keiretsu group appears to reduce the probability that an overvalued firm will decide to acquire another firm. Misvaluation is also an important determinant of the likelihood of a firm becoming a target; however, there is no significant difference between keiretsu and nonkeiretsu firms in this regard. Shareholders of keiretsu‐affiliated acquirers do not gain from acquisitions, whereas acquisitions by nonaffiliated firms do seem to be value enhancing.     

Liquidity Premia and Transaction Costs

Standard literature concludes that transaction costs only have a second‐order effect on liquidity premia. We show that this conclusion depends crucially on the assumption of a constant investment opportunity set. In a regime‐switching model in which the investment opportunity set varies over time, we explicitly characterize the optimal consumption and investment strategy. In contrast to the standard literature, we find that transaction costs can have a first‐order effect on liquidity premia. However, with reasonably calibrated parameters, the presence of transaction costs still cannot fully explain the equity premium puzzle.     

The real impact of stock market mispricing — Evidence from Australia

Using a large panel of Australian firms, we investigate if mispricing in the stock market has an impact on firm-level investment. A significantly positive relation is documented between investment and the proxies for mispricing, suggesting that overpriced (underpriced) firms tend to overinvest (underinvest). Furthermore, we find that equity-dependent firms display a more pronounced sensitivity of investment to stock misvaluation than do nonequity-dependent firms. Taken together, our findings evidence that mispricing in Australian capital markets may have significant influence on the real economy, and the influence works though an equity-financing channel.     

Measuring Mutual Fund Flow Pressure as Shock to Stock Returns

A large and rapidly growing literature examines the impact of misvaluation on firm policies by using mutual fund outflow-induced price pressure to isolate nonfundamental price variation. I demonstrate that the standard approach to computing outflow-induced price pressure produces a measure that is inadvertently a direct function of a stock's actual realized return during the outflow quarter, raising doubts about its orthogonality to fundamentals. After removing these direct measurements of return, outflows generate a fairly negligible quarterly decline in returns, with no subsequent reversal, and many established results in this literature no longer hold. I provide suggestions for future analysis.     

Political Regimes and the Cost of Disinflation

This study investigates, using data from 1960 to 1998, whether the nature of political regimes can help explain cross‐national and intertemporal variations in the cost of disinflationary policies, as measured by the sacrifice ratio. We show that, ceteris paribus, right‐wing governments have lower costs of disinflations than left‐wing governments. We argue this is due to a superior credibility, resulting from their stronger anti‐inflation reputations. In addition (and in marked contrast to previous studies), we find that when we control for political regimes, trade openness, and other standard factors in this literature, central bank independence has no significant effect on the sacrifice ratio.     

The Value of Adjusting the Bias in Recommendations: International Evidence

The financial literature has shown that both earnings forecasts and investment recommendations are optimistically biased. However, while the bias in earnings forecasts has decreased over time and even some recent studies show that they are no longer optimistic, in the case of investment recommendations this bias still remains relatively constant over time. Therefore, it seems that recommendations are less credible to investors than earnings forecasts. The vast majority of recommendation studies have been carried out at the country level. In this paper, we use an international context to study whether profitable investment strategies exist when adjusting the recommendation bias of each analysed country. The adjustment we propose to correct this bias takes into account the differences across countries, and also varies in time to correct for the changes in bias over time within countries. Our empirical results show that there are in fact significant differences in the level of bias among countries, with the US and the UK being the countries with the highest bias. Second, the adjusted consensus portfolios are more orthogonal to typical investment styles (size, book‐to‐market and attention) and we find that investors could implement a higher number of profitable investment strategies using this adjusted measure. In this line, the results show that the countries with the lowest bias obtain the highest risk adjusted abnormal returns. Third, our work entails a practical implication, as it shows the value embedded in a simple necessary adjustment in the global asset management context. This is an important result showing that profitable investment strategies exist when considering a global portfolio based on adjusted recommendations.     

A Measure of Competition Based on 10‐K Filings

In this paper we develop a measure of competition based on management's disclosures in their 10‐K filing and find that firms’ rates of diminishing marginal returns on new and existing investment vary significantly with our measure. We show that these firm‐level disclosures are related to existing industry‐level measures of disclosure (e.g., Herfindahl index), but capture something distinctly new. In particular, we show that the measure has both across‐industry variation and within‐industry variation, and each is related to the firm's future rates of diminishing marginal returns. As such, our measure is a useful complement to existing measures of competition. We present a battery of specification tests designed to explore the boundaries of our measure and how it varies with the definition of industry and the presence of other measures of competition.     

Internal financial constraints,external financial constraints,and investment choice: Evidence from a panel of UK firms

This paper uses a panel of 24,184 UK firms over the period 1993–2003 to study the extent to which the sensitivity of investment to cash flow differs at firms facing different degrees of internal and external financial constraints. Our results suggest that when the sample is split on the basis of the level of internal funds available to the firms, the relationship between investment and cash flow is U-shaped. On the other hand, the sensitivity of investment to cash flow tends to increase monotonically with the degree of external financial constraints faced by firms. Combining the internal with the external financial constraints, we find that the dependence of investment on cash flow is strongest for those externally financially constrained firms that have a relatively high level of internal funds.