This paper identities five common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. There are three stock-market factors: an overall market factor and factors related to firm size and book-to-market equity. There are two bond-market factors. related to maturity and default risks. Stock returns have shared variation due to the stock-market factors, and they are linked to bond returns through shared variation in the bond-market factors. Except for low-grade corporates. the bond-market factors capture the common variation in bond returns. Most important. the five factors seem to explain average returns on stocks and bonds. 1.

In a financially integrated global market, the conditionally expected return on a portfolio of securities from a particular country is determined by the country's world risk exposure. This paper measures the conditional risk of 17 countries. The reward per unit of risk is the world price of covariance risk. Although the tests provide evidence on the conditional mean variance efficiency of the benchmark portfolio, the results show that countries' risk exposures help explain differences in performance. Evidence is also presented which indicates that these risk exposures change through time and that the world price of covariance risk is not constant.

This paper surveys the field of asset pricing. The emphasis is on the interplay between theory and empirical work and on the trade-off between risk and return. Modern research seeks to understand the behavior of the stochastic discount factor ~SDF! that prices all assets in the economy. The behavior of the term structure of real interest rates restricts the conditional mean of the SDF, whereas patterns of risk premia restrict its conditional volatility and factor structure. Stylized facts about interest rates, aggregate stock prices, and cross-sectional patterns in stock returns have stimulated new research on optimal portfolio choice, intertemporal equilibrium models, and behavioral finance. This paper surveys the field of asset pricing. The emphasis is on the interplay between theory and empirical work. Theorists develop models with testable predictions; empirical researchers document “puzzles”—stylized facts that fail to fit established theories—and this stimulates the development of new theories. Such a process is part of the normal development of any science. Asset pricing, like the rest of economics, faces the special challenge that data are generated naturally rather than experimentally, and so researchers cannot control the quantity of data or the random shocks that affect the data. A particularly interesting characteristic of the asset pricing field is that these random shocks are also the subject matter of the theory. As Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay ~1997, Chap. 1, p. 3! put it: What distinguishes financial economics is the central role that uncertainty plays in both financial theory and its empirical implementation. The starting point for every financial model is the uncertainty facing investors, and the substance of every financial model involves the impact of uncertainty on the behavior of investors and, ultimately, on mar-* Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Spreads, depths, and trading activity for U.S. equities are studied over an extended time sample. Daily changes in market averages of liquidity and trading activity are highly volatile, negatively serially dependent, and influenced by a variety of factors. Liquidity plummets significantly in down markets but increases weakly in up markets. Trading activity increases in either up or down markets. Recent market volatility induces less trading activity and reduces spreads. There are strong day-of-the-week effects; Fridays are relatively sluggish and illiquid while Tuesdays are the opposite. Long- and shortterm interest rates influence liquidity and trading activity. Depth and trading activity increase just prior to major macroeconomic announcements.

We examine how investor sentiment affects the cross-section of stock returns. Theory predicts that a broad wave of sentiment will disproportionately affect stocks whose valuations are highly subjective and are difficult to arbitrage. We test this prediction by studying how the cross-section of subsequent stock returns varies with proxies for beginning-of-period investor sentiment. When sentiment is low, subsequent returns are relatively high on smaller stocks, high volatility stocks, unprofitable stocks, non-dividend-paying stocks, extreme-growth stocks, and distressed stocks, consistent with an initial underpricing of these stocks. When sentiment is high, on the other hand, these patterns attenuate or fully reverse. The results are consistent with predictions and appear unlikely to reflect an alternative explanation based on compensation for systematic risk.

Abstract not found

Tax-Loss Trading and Wash Sales An analysis of trades in the Finnish stock market around the turn of the year 1994-95, 199596, and 1996-97 shows that Finnish investors tend to realize losses more than gains towards the end of December. They also buy back the same stocks they recently sold, with a repurchase rate that depends on the size of the capital loss and how close the sale is to the end of December. The resulting net buying pressure from these "wash sale" repurchases is greater for stocks with small market capitalizations and has a calendar pattern that is similar to that of stock returns. JEL classification: G10 1. Introduction Most researchers in finance suspect that tax-loss selling of stocks occurs at the end of the year, but there is little direct evidence that tax considerations actually motivate end-of-year trading in these securities. Moreover, while research hints that the January effect may be tied to December tax-loss selling, no one has documented whether purchase...

Anomalies are empirical results that seem to be inconsistent with maintained theories of asset-pricing behavior. They indicate either market inefficiency (profit opportunities) or inadequacies in the underlying asset-pricing model. The evidence in this paper shows that the size effect, the value effect, the weekend effect, and the dividend yield effect seem to have weakened or disappeared after the papers that highlighted them were published. At about the same time, practitioners began investment vehicles that implemented the strategies implied by some of these academic papers. The small-firm turn-of-the-year effect became weaker in the years after it was first documented in the academic literature, although there is some evidence that it still exists. Interestingly, however, it does not seem to exist in the portfolio returns of practitioners who focus on small-capitalization firms. All of these findings raise the possibility that anomalies are more apparent than real. The notoriety associated with the findings of unusual evidence tempts authors to further investigate puzzling anomalies and later to try to explain them. But even if the anomalies existed in the sample

Every finance professional employs the concept of market efficiency. The theory, evidence and counterevidence focus on a couple of dozen highly influential articles published during the twentieth century. We summarise the origins of and interlinkages between these contributions to the history of finance.

Abstract not found