The Journal of Finance

The Journal of Finance publishes leading research across all the major fields of finance. It is one of the most widely cited journals in academic finance, and in all of economics. Each of the six issues per year reaches over 8,000 academics, finance professionals, libraries, and government and financial institutions around the world. The journal is the official publication of The American Finance Association, the premier academic organization devoted to the study and promotion of knowledge about financial economics.

AFA members can log in to view full-text articles below.

View past issues


Search the Journal of Finance:






Search results: 11.

Report of the Editor of the Journal of Finance for the Year 2017

Published: 08/24/2018   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12708

STEFAN NAGEL


Report of the Editor of The Journal of Finance for the Year 2018

Published: 05/07/2019   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12781

STEFAN NAGEL


Report of the Editor of The Journal of Finance for the Year 2020

Published: 03/04/2021   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.13015

STEFAN NAGEL


Report of the Editor of the Journal of Finance for the Year 2017

Published: 08/24/2018   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12708

STEFAN NAGEL


Report of the Editor of The Journal of Finance for the Year 2019

Published: 03/09/2020   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12881

STEFAN NAGEL


Report of the Editor of The Journal of Finance for the Year 2021

Published: 03/21/2022   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.13115

STEFAN NAGEL


Risk‐Adjusting the Returns to Venture Capital

Published: 02/03/2016   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12390

ARTHUR KORTEWEG, STEFAN NAGEL

We adapt stochastic discount factor (SDF) valuation methods for venture capital (VC) performance evaluation. Our approach generalizes the popular Public Market Equivalent (PME) method and allows statistical inference in the presence of cross‐sectionally dependent, skewed VC payoffs. We relax SDF restrictions implicit in the PME so that the SDF can accurately reflect risk‐free rates and returns of public equity markets during the sample period. This generalized PME yields substantially different abnormal performance estimates for VC funds and start‐up investments, especially in times of strongly rising public equity markets and for investments with betas far from one.


Hedge Funds and the Technology Bubble

Published: 11/27/2005   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00690.x

MARKUS K. BRUNNERMEIER, STEFAN NAGEL

This paper documents that hedge funds did not exert a correcting force on stock prices during the technology bubble. Instead, they were heavily invested in technology stocks. This does not seem to be the result of unawareness of the bubble: Hedge funds captured the upturn, but, by reducing their positions in stocks that were about to decline, avoided much of the downturn. Our findings question the efficient markets notion that rational speculators always stabilize prices. They are consistent with models in which rational investors may prefer to ride bubbles because of predictable investor sentiment and limits to arbitrage.


Estimation and Evaluation of Conditional Asset Pricing Models

Published: 05/23/2011   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01654.x

STEFAN NAGEL, KENNETH J. SINGLETON

We find that several recently proposed consumption‐based models of stock returns, when evaluated using an optimal set of managed portfolios and the associated model‐implied conditional moment restrictions, fail to capture key features of risk premiums in equity markets. To arrive at these conclusions, we construct an optimal Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimator for models in which the stochastic discount factor (SDF) is a conditionally affine function of a set of priced risk factors, and we show that there is an optimal choice of managed portfolios to use in testing a null model against a proposed alternative generalized SDF.


Interpreting Factor Models

Published: 02/02/2018   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12612

SERHIY KOZAK, STEFAN NAGEL, SHRIHARI SANTOSH

We argue that tests of reduced‐form factor models and horse races between “characteristics” and “covariances” cannot discriminate between alternative models of investor beliefs. Since asset returns have substantial commonality, absence of near‐arbitrage opportunities implies that the stochastic discount factor can be represented as a function of a few dominant sources of return variation. As long as some arbitrageurs are present, this conclusion applies even in an economy in which all cross‐sectional variation in expected returns is caused by sentiment. Sentiment‐investor demand results in substantial mispricing only if arbitrageurs are exposed to factor risk when taking the other side of these trades.


Sizing Up Repo

Published: 04/08/2014   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12168

ARVIND KRISHNAMURTHY, STEFAN NAGEL, DMITRY ORLOV

To understand which short‐term debt markets experienced “runs” during the financial crisis, we analyze a novel data set of repurchase agreements (repo), that is, loans between nonbank cash lenders and dealer banks collateralized with securities. Consistent with a run, repo volume backed by private asset‐backed securities falls to near zero in the crisis. However, the reduction is only $182 billion, which is small relative to the stock of private asset‐backed securities as well as the contraction in asset‐backed commercial paper. While the repo contraction is small in aggregate, it disproportionately affected a few dealer banks.