The Journal of Finance

Expectations Hypotheses Tests

Published: 12/17/2002   |   DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00371

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.

Characterizing Predictable Components in Excess Returns on Equity and Foreign Exchange Markets

Published: 06/01/1992   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04399.x

GEERT BEKAERT, ROBERT J. HODRICK

The paper first characterizes the predictable components in excess rates of returns on major equity and foreign exchange markets using lagged excess returns, dividend yields, and forward premiums as instruments. Vector autoregressions (VARs) demonstrate one‐step‐ahead predictability and facilitate calculations of implied long‐horizon statistics, such as variance ratios. Estimation of latent variable models then subjects the VARs to constraints derived from dynamic asset pricing theories. Examination of volatility bounds on intertemporal marginal rates of substitution provides summary statistics that quantify the challenge facing dynamic asset pricing models.

Asset Price Volatility, Bubbles, and Process Switching

Published: 09/01/1986   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1986.tb04551.x

ROBERT P. FLOOD, ROBERT J. HODRICK

Evidence of excess volatilities of asset prices compared with those of market fundamentals is often attributed to speculative bubbles. This study demonstrates that bubbles could in theory lead to excess volatility, but it shows that certain variance bounds tests preclude bubbles as an explanation. The evidence ought to be attributed to model misspecification or inappropriate statistical tests. One important misspecification occurs if a researcher incorrectly specifies the time series properties of market fundamentals. A bubble‐free example economy characterized by a potential switch in government policies produces asset prices that would appear, to an unwary researcher, to contain bubbles.

International Stock Return Comovements

Published: 11/25/2009   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01512.x

GEERT BEKAERT, ROBERT J. HODRICK, XIAOYAN ZHANG

We examine international stock return comovements using country‐industry and country‐style portfolios as the base portfolios. We first establish that parsimonious risk‐based factor models capture the data covariance structure better than the popular Heston–Rouwenhorst (1994) model. We then establish the following stylized facts regarding stock return comovements. First, there is no evidence for an upward trend in return correlations, except for the European stock markets. Second, the increasing importance of industry factors relative to country factors was a short‐lived phenomenon. Third, large growth stocks are more correlated across countries than are small value stocks, and the difference has increased over time.

The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns

Published: 01/20/2006   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00836.x

ANDREW ANG, ROBERT J. HODRICK, YUHANG XING, XIAOYAN ZHANG

We examine the pricing of aggregate volatility risk in the cross‐section of stock returns. Consistent with theory, we find that stocks with high sensitivities to innovations in aggregate volatility have low average returns. Stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility relative to the Fama and French (1993, Journal of Financial Economics 25, 2349) model have abysmally low average returns. This phenomenon cannot be explained by exposure to aggregate volatility risk. Size, book‐to‐market, momentum, and liquidity effects cannot account for either the low average returns earned by stocks with high exposure to systematic volatility risk or for the low average returns of stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility.