Pages: i-vii | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2001.tb00689.x | Cited by: 0
Pages: viii-xxiii | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2001.tb00692.x | Cited by: 0
Pages: 1165-1175 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00361 | Cited by: 132
In standard asset pricing theory, investors are assumed to invest directly in financial markets. The role of financial institutions is ignored. The focus in corporate finance is on agency problems. How do you ensure that managers act in shareholders' interests? There is an inconsistency in assuming that when you give your money to a financial institution there is no agency problem, but when you give it to a firm there is. It is argued that both areas need to take proper account of the role of financial institutions and markets. Appropriate concepts for analyzing particular situations should be used.
Pages: 1177-1177 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00362 | Cited by: 0
George M. Constantinides
Pages: 1179-1182 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00363 | Cited by: 1
Myron S. Scholes
Pages: 1183-1206 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00364 | Cited by: 7
Bruce D. Grundy
Merton Miller's status as a father of finance reflects the academic depth, breadth, and rigor of his writings and two important facets of his character. Merton was a man of great warmth and humor. He communicated his often challenging views via memorable phrases and anecdotes that have become part of the everyday language of the profession. Merton was also a man of great dedication. The whole profession has benefited from his devotion to his doctoral students, to his colleagues, and to his coauthors. This essay demonstrates how Merton's admiration for markets provided the foundation for all his research.
Pages: 1207-1239 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00365 | Cited by: 174
Ľluboš Pástor, Robert F. Stambaugh
A long return history is useful in estimating the current equity premium even if the historical distribution has experienced structural breaks. The long series helps not only if the timing of breaks is uncertain but also if one believes that large shifts in the premium are unlikely or that the premium is associated, in part, with volatility. Our framework incorporates these features along with a belief that prices are likely to move opposite to contemporaneous shifts in the premium. The estimated premium since 1834 fluctuates between 4 and 6 percent and exhibits its sharpest drop in the last decade.
Pages: 1240-1245 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00366 | Cited by: 4
Pages: 1247-1292 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00367 | Cited by: 425
Nicholas Barberis, Ming Huang
We study equilibrium firm‐level stock returns in two economies: one in which investors are loss averse over the fluctuations of their stock portfolio, and another in which they are loss averse over the fluctuations of individual stocks that they own. Both approaches can shed light on empirical phenomena, but we find the second approach to be more successful: In that economy, the typical individual stock return has a high mean and excess volatility, and there is a large value premium in the cross section which can, to some extent, be captured by a commonly used multifactor model.
Pages: 1292-1295 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00368 | Cited by: 3
Pages: 1297-1351 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00369 | Cited by: 234
Yacine AÏT-SAHALI, Michael W. Brandt
We study asset allocation when the conditional moments of returns are partly predictable. Rather than first model the return distribution and subsequently characterize the portfolio choice, we determine directly the dependence of the optimal portfolio weights on the predictive variables. We combine the predictors into a single index that best captures time variations in investment opportunities. This index helps investors determine which economic variables they should track and, more importantly, in what combination. We consider investors with both expected utility (mean variance and CRRA) and nonexpected utility (ambiguity aversion and prospect theory) objectives and characterize their market timing, horizon effects, and hedging demands.
Pages: 1351-1355 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00370 | Cited by: 0
Jessica A. Wachter
Pages: 1357-1394 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00371 | Cited by: 157
Geert Bekaert, Robert J. Hodrick
We investigate the expectations hypotheses of the term structure of interest rates and of the foreign exchange market using vector autoregressive methods for U.S. dollar, Deutsche mark, and British pound interest rates and exchange rates. We examine Wald, Lagrange multiplier, and distance metric tests by iterating on approximate solutions that require only matrix inversions. Bias‐corrected, constrained VARs provide Monte Carlo simulations. Wald tests grossly overreject the null, Lagrange multiplier tests slightly underreject, and distance metric tests overreject. A common interpretation emerges from the small sample statistics. The evidence against the expectations hypotheses is much less strong than under asymptotic inference.
Pages: 1394-1399 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00372 | Cited by: 0
Pages: 1401-1440 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00373 | Cited by: 459
Albert S. Kyle, Wei Xiong
Financial contagion is described as a wealth effect in a continuous‐time model with two risky assets and three types of traders. Noise traders trade randomly in one market. Long‐term investors provide liquidity using a linear rule based on fundamentals. Convergence traders with logarithmic utility trade optimally in both markets. Asset price dynamics are endogenously determined (numerically) as functions of endogenous wealth and exogenous noise. When convergence traders lose money, they liquidate positions in both markets. This creates contagion, in that returns become more volatile and more correlated. Contagion reduces benefits from portfolio diversification and raises issues for risk management.
Pages: 1440-1443 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00374 | Cited by: 2
Stephen A. Ross
Pages: 1445-1485 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00375 | Cited by: 121
Pages: 1485-1488 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00376 | Cited by: 7
Pages: 1489-1528 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00377 | Cited by: 120
Naveen Khanna, Sheri Tice
We examine capital expenditure decisions of discount firms in response to WalMart's entry into their markets. Before WalMart's entry, focused incumbents and discount divisions of diversified incumbents are similar in size, geographic dispersion, and firm debt levels. However, discount divisions of diversified firms are significantly more productive. After WalMart's entry, diversified firms are quicker to either exit the discount business or stay and fight. Also, their capital expenditures are more sensitive to the productivity of their discount business. Internal capital markets function well, as transfers are away from the worsening discount divisions. It appears diversified firms make better investment decisions.
Pages: 1528-1531 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00378 | Cited by: 1
Pages: 1533-1597 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00379 | Cited by: 1030
The basic paradigm of asset pricing is in vibrant flux. The purely rational approach is being subsumed by a broader approach based upon the psychology of investors. In this approach, security expected returns are determined by both risk and misvaluation. This survey sketches a framework for understanding decision biases, evaluates the a priori arguments and the capital market evidence bearing on the importance of investor psychology for security prices, and reviews recent models.
Pages: 1601-1601 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2001.tb00693.x | Cited by: 0
Pages: 1607-1620 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00382 | Cited by: 0
Richard C. Green
Pages: 1621-1622 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00383 | Cited by: 0
Robert S. Hamada
Pages: 1623-1625 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2001.tb00690.x | Cited by: 0
Pages: 1627-1628 | Published: 8/2001 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2001.tb00691.x | Cited by: 0