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.     

Age‐Dependent Increasing Risk Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle

We introduce a new preference structure—age‐dependent increasing risk aversion (IRA)—in a three‐period overlapping generations model with borrowing constraints, and examine the behavior of equity premium in this framework. We find that IRA preferences generate results that are more consistent with U.S. data for the equity premium, level of savings and portfolio shares, without assuming unreasonable levels of risk aversion. We find that the relative difference between the two risk aversions (how much more risk‐averse old agents are relative to the middle‐aged) matters more than the average risk aversion in the economy (how much more risk‐averse both cohorts are). Our findings are robust with respect to a number of model generalizations.     

Determinants of individual investment decisions in investment‐based crowdfunding

We investigate determinants of investment decisions in investment‐based (equity and bond) crowdfunding campaigns, using a novel investment‐, investor‐ and campaign‐level database, where equity refers to investments in entrepreneurial start‐ups and bonds to large real estate projects. We find that investors who have higher social interactions invest more. Social interactions are important in an equity crowdfunding context but do not affect participation in bond investments. This is consistent with the view that investors' social networks help reduce information asymmetry. Women invest less in the riskiest (equity) investments but more in safer ones (bonds). These findings are better explained by differences in risk aversion than differences in overconfidence between men and women. Overall, the findings contribute to the understanding of how investment‐based crowdfunding can be a viable source of entrepreneurial finance and how entrepreneurs' campaign decisions affect investor participation in this new form of entrepreneurial finance.     

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.     

The Consumption–Income Ratio,Entrepreneurial Risk,and the U.S. Stock Market

The owners of small noncorporate businesses face substantial and largely uninsurable entrepreneurial risk. They are also an important group of stock owners. This paper explores the role of entrepreneurial risk in explaining time variation in expected U.S. stock returns in the period 1952–2010. It proposes an entrepreneurial distress factor that is based on a cointegrating relationship between aggregate consumption and income from proprietary and nonproprietary wealth. This factor, referred to here as the cpy residual, signals when entrepreneurial income is low in relation to aggregate consumption and other forms of income in the economy. It is highly correlated with cross‐sectional measures of idiosyncratic entrepreneurial and default risk, and it has considerable forecasting power for the expected equity premium. However, the correlation between cpy and the stock market started to decline at the beginning of the 1980s. The decline in this correlation can be associated with increased stock market participation and with the progress of U.S. state‐level bank deregulation. This pattern is consistent with the view that entrepreneurial risk became more easily diversifiable in the wake of U.S. state‐level bank deregulation.     

Unconventional monetary policy announcements and risk aversion: evidence from the U.S. and European equity markets

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the role of unconventional monetary policy announcements on risk aversion – as proxied by the variance premium – by using panel data analysis. The objective of this empirical analysis is to investigate the risk-taking channel of monetary policy for the major European and U.S. equity markets by studying the impact that the announcements of an unconventional monetary policy has on market uncertainty and risk perception. By measuring the difference between risk-neutral and realised and conditional variance, we estimate the variance premium, which captures the impact that pricing concerns have on the prices of options. The empirical analysis indicates that easing monetary policies can significantly reduce the variance premium. In addition, we examine the risk premium structure across markets to determine the potential differences in investors’ risk aversion.     

Luxury Goods and the Equity Premium

This paper evaluates the equity premium using novel data on the consumption of luxury goods. Specifying utility as a nonhomothetic function of both luxury and basic consumption goods, we derive pricing equations and evaluate the risk of holding equity. Household survey and national accounts data mostly reflect basic consumption, and therefore overstate the risk aversion necessary to match the observed equity premium. The risk aversion implied by the consumption of luxury goods is more than an order of magnitude less than that implied by national accounts data. For the very rich, the equity premium is much less of a puzzle.     

Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States

To what degree are audit fees for U.S. firms with publicly traded equity higher than fees for otherwise similar firms with private equity? The answer is potentially important for evaluating regulatory regime design efficiency and for understanding audit demand and production economics. For U.S. firms with publicly traded debt, we hold constant the regulatory regime, including mandated issuer reporting and auditor responsibilities. We vary equity ownership and thus public securities market contextual factors, including any related public firm audit fees from increased audit effort to reduce audit litigation risk and/or pure litigation risk premium (litigation channel effects). In cross‐section, we find that audit fees for public equity firms are 20–22% higher than fees for otherwise similar private equity firms. Time‐series comparisons for firms that change ownership status yield larger percentage fee increases (decreases) for those going public (private). Results are consistent with litigation channel effects giving rise to substantial incremental audit fees for U.S. firms with public equity ownership.     

Buyout Activity: The Impact of Aggregate Discount Rates

Buyout booms form in response to declines in the aggregate risk premium. We document that the equity risk premium is the primary determinant of buyout activity rather than credit‐specific conditions. We articulate a simple explanation for this phenomenon: a low risk premium increases the present value of performance gains and decreases the cost of holding an illiquid investment. A panel of U.S. buyouts confirms this view. The risk premium shapes changes in buyout characteristics over the cycle, including their riskiness, leverage, and performance. Our results underscore the importance of the risk premium in corporate finance decisions.     

Robustness of the risk–return relationship in the U.S. stock market

Using GARCH-in-Mean models, we study the robustness of the risk–return relationship in monthly U.S. stock market returns (1928:1–2004:12) with respect to the specification of the conditional mean equation. The issue is important because in this commonly used framework, unnecessarily including an intercept is known to distort conclusions. The existence of the relationship is relatively robust, but its strength depends on the prior belief concerning the intercept. The latter applies in particular to the first half of the sample, where also the coefficient of the relative risk aversion is smaller and the equity premium greater than in the latter half.     

Isolating the disaster risk premium with equity options

The US equity risk premium is approximated with a mean unhedged equity return. I utilize out-of-the-money put options to obtain a hedged equity return, which allows me to quantify the disaster risk premium as the difference between the means of unhedged and hedged equity returns. I demonstrate that a substantial fraction of the U.S. equity risk premium over the period from 1996 to 2016 is attributed to disasters defined as stock price depreciations below a pre-specified strike price. Employing alternative hedging schemes increases the contribution of disasters to the equity risk premium.     

The Equity Market Risk Premium and the Valuation of Overseas Investments

There is little agreement among academics or practitioners about how to measure the size of the equity market risk premium, particularly when it relates to investments in emerging markets. Using monthly equity returns for 22 developed and 24 emerging markets covering the period 1976–2006, the authors find that developed capital markets have experienced significant increases in their degree of integration with the U.S. and world market indexes, while emerging markets remain at least partly segmented from those of the U.S. and the world. For countries that are reasonably well integrated into global capital markets, the authors suggest using the U.S.—based equity market risk premium. But when valuing investments in emerging markets, they recommend use of the Capital Asset Pricing Model adjusted for political risk and a measure of co‐movement between the foreign and U.S. stock markets. The authors also remind readers that the equity market risk premium is supposed to be a forward‐looking measure, and that the common practice of inferring the future from the past can be misleading, particularly in the case of rapidly developing emerging markets.     

Can ambiguity aversion solve the equity premium puzzle? Survey evidence from international data

Ambiguity aversion has been suggested as a potential explanation for the equity premium puzzle in recent theoretical models. To test this hypothesis, we measure the amount of ambiguity aversion in a large-scale international survey. A comparison to the average equity premia in these countries demonstrates that ambiguity aversion does, indeed, have a significant influence on the amount of equity risk premium, even when controlling for macroeconomic parameters. Finally, we connect differences in ambiguity aversion to differences in uncertainty avoidance, one of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.     

The Effect of Temporal Risk Aversion on Optimal Consumption,the Equity Premium,and the Equilibrium Interest Rate

This paper demonstrates that temporal risk aversion makes smoothing consumption over time less attractive, while the usual risk aversion makes it more attractive. As temporal risk aversion increases, the equilibrium interest rate decreases and the equity premium increases. This paper also shows a striking and novel result that an increase in time impatience can lead to either a decrease or an increase in the interest rate, depending on the nature of the nonseparability.     

Loss aversion,asymmetric market comovements,and the home bias

Loss aversion has been used to explain why a high equity premium might be consistent with plausible levels of risk aversion. The intuition is that the first-order-different utility impact of wealth gains and losses leads loss-averse investors to behave similarly to investors with high risk aversion. But if so, should those agents not perceive larger gains from international diversification than standard expected-utility investors with plausible levels of risk aversion? They might not, because comovements in international stock markets are asymmetric: correlations are higher in market downturns than in upturns. This asymmetry dampens the gains from diversification relatively more for loss-averse investors. We analyze the portfolio problem of such an investor who has to choose between home and foreign equities in the presence of asymmetric comovement in returns. Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of the home bias puzzle we find that loss-averse investors behave similarly to those with standard expected-utility preferences and plausible levels of risk aversion. We argue that preference specifications that appear to perform well with respect to the equity premium puzzle should be subjected to this “test”.     

Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors

Myopic loss aversion was suggested by Benartzi and Thaler (1995) as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. Its main prediction is that loss averse investors, who evaluate their investment performance too frequently and therefore often observe small losses on their stock portfolios, would invest too little in equity. We investigate the link between myopic loss aversion and actual investment decisions of individual investors, using survey data. Our results are consistent with the predictions of Benartzi and Thaler. Higher myopic loss aversion is associated with lower stock investment as a share of total assets. Investors tend to evaluate their stock portfolio performance too often, which contributes to the prevalence of myopic loss aversion. The effect of myopia is most apparent when investors both evaluate their portfolios frequently and trade stocks regularly.     

The Return to Direct Investment in Private Firms: New Evidence on the Private Equity Premium Puzzle*

This paper uses a novel dataset to analyze the return to direct investments in private firms by pension funds. We have two key findings. First, direct investments in private firms have underperformed public equity by 392 basis points per annum under conservative risk adjustments. Second, initial mispricing, due to over‐optimism or misperceived risk, and subsequent low capital gains seem to explain the gap in returns to private firms. Overall, these findings complement the finding of Moskowitz and Vissing‐Jørgensen (2002) of low returns on entrepreneurial investments and provide new insight into the existence of what they call the private equity premium puzzle: Even professional investors with well‐diversified portfolios like pension funds seem to get a poor risk‐return tradeoff from investing directly in private firms.     

Estimating Private Equity Returns from Limited Partner Cash Flows

We introduce a methodology to estimate the historical time series of returns to investment in private equity funds. The approach requires only an unbalanced panel of cash contributions and distributions accruing to limited partners and is robust to sparse data. We decompose private equity returns from 1994 to 2015 into a component due to traded factors and a time‐varying private equity premium not spanned by publicly traded factors. We find cyclicality in private equity returns that differs according to fund type and is consistent with the conjecture that capital market segmentation contributes to private equity returns.     

Private Equity Performance and Liquidity Risk

Private equity has traditionally been thought to provide diversification benefits. However, these benefits may be lower than anticipated as we find that private equity suffers from significant exposure to the same liquidity risk factor as public equity and other alternative asset classes. The unconditional liquidity risk premium is about 3% annually and, in a four‐factor model, the inclusion of this liquidity risk premium reduces alpha to zero. In addition, we provide evidence that the link between private equity returns and overall market liquidity occurs via a funding liquidity channel.     

Home bias in equity portfolios, inflation hedging, and international capital market equilibrium

We test whether the home bias in equity portfolios is causedby investors trying to hedge inflation risk. The empirical evidenceis consistent with this motive only if investors have very highlevels of risk tolerance and equity returns are negatively correlatedwith domestic inflation. We then develop a model of internationalportfolio choice and equity market equilibrium that integratesinflation risk and deadweight costs. Using this model we estimatethe levels of costs required to generate the observed home biasin portfolios consistent with different levels of risk aversion.For a level of risk aversion consistent with standard estimatesof the domestic equity market risk premium these costs are abouta few percent per annum greater than observable costs such aswithholding taxes. Thus, the home bias cannot be explained byeither inflation hedging or direct observable costs of internationalinvestment unless investors have very low levels of risk aversion.