We test the dividend and leverage predictions of the tradeoff and pecking order models. As both models predict, more profitable firms have higher long-term dividend payouts, and firms with more investments have lower payouts. Confirming the pecking order model but contradicting the tradeoff model, more profitable firms are less levered. Firms with more investment opportunities are also less levered, which is in line with the tradeoff model and a complex version of the pecking order model. Firms with more investments have lower long-term dividend payouts, but dividends do not vary to accommodate short-term variation in investment. Confirming the pecking order model, short-term variation in investment and earnings is mostly absorbed by variation in debt. * Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (Fama) and Sloan School of Management, MIT (French). The finance literature offers two competing models of financing decisions. In the tradeoff model, firms identify their optimal l...

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

We estimate the equity premium using dividend and earnings growth rates to measure the expected rate of capital gain. Our estimates for 1951 to 2000, 2.55 percent and 4.32 percent, are much lower than the equity premium produced by the average stock return, 7.43 percent. Our evidence suggests that the high average return for 1951 to 2000 is due to a decline in discount rates that produces a large unexpected capital gain. Our main conclusion is that the average stock return of the last halfcentury is a lot higher than expected.

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.

We develop a theory in which the decision to pay dividends is driven by investor demand. Managers cater to investors by paying dividends when investors put a stock price premium on payers and not paying when investors prefer nonpayers. To test this prediction, we construct four time series measures of the investor demand for dividend payers. By each measure, nonpayers initiate dividends when demand for payers is high. By some measures, payers omit dividends when demand is low. Further analysis confirms that the results are better explained by the catering theory than other theories of dividends.

I use a vector autoregressive model (VAR) to decompose an individual firm’s stock return into two components: changes in cash-flow expectations (i.e., cash-flow news) and changes in discount rates (i.e., expected-return news). The VAR yields three main results. First, firm-level stock returns are mainly driven by cash-flow news. For a typical stock, the variance of cash-flow news is more than twice that of expected-return news. Second, shocks to expected returns and cash flows are positively correlated for a typical small stock. Third, expected-return-news series are highly correlated across firms, while cash-flow news can largely be diversified away in aggregate portfolios.

Abstract not found

This paper reviews the theory and evidence regarding the impact of taxation on corporate financial policy. Starting from a basic characterization of the classical corporate income tax and its effects, the analysis focuses on three areas of research: equity policy, debt-equity decisions, and choices regarding ownership structure and organizational form. The discussion stresses the distinction between nominal and more fundamental financial differences for example, in the relationship between borrowing and leasing and that financial policy involves choices not only among different underlying policies but also among characterizations of a given policy. The final section offers some brief reflections on the implications of continuing financial innovation.

The average cash to assets ratio for U.S. industrial firms increases by 129 % from 1980 to 2004. Because of this increase in the average cash ratio, firms at the end of the sample period can pay back all of their debt obligations with their cash holdings, so that the average firm has no leverage when leverage is measured by net debt. This change in cash ratios and net debt is the result of a secular trend rather than the outcome of the recent buildup in cash holdings of some large firms, but is more pronounced for firms that do not pay dividends. The average cash ratio increases over the sample period because firms change: their cash flow becomes riskier, they hold fewer inventories and accounts receivable, and are increasingly R&D intensive. The precautionary motive for cash holdings appears to explain the increase in the average cash ratio. Considerable media attention has been devoted to the increase in cash holdings of U.S. firms. For instance, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal states that “The piles of cash and stockpile of repurchased shares at [big U.S. companies] have hit record levels”. 1 In this paper, we investigate how the cash holdings of American firms have evolved since 1980 and whether existing models of cash holdings help explain this evolution. We find that there is a secular increase in the cash holdings of the typical firm from 1980-2004. In a regression of the average cash-to-assets ratio on a constant and time, time has a

We investigate the empirical implications of using various measures of payout yield rather than dividend yield for asset pricing models. We find statistically and economically significant predictability in the time series when payout (dividends plus repurchases) and net payout (dividends plus repurchases minus issuances) yields are used instead of the dividend yield. Similarly, we find that payout (net payout) yields contains information about the cross section of expected stock returns exceeding that of dividend yields, and that the high minus low payout yield portfolio is a priced factor. WHILE THE IRRELEVANCE THEOREM of Miller and Modigliani (1961) implies that there is no reason to suspect that dividends play a role in determining equity price levels or equity returns, the theorem is silent on the usefulness of dividends in explaining these variables. It is then, perhaps, not surprising that there is a considerable literature exploiting the properties of dividends and dividend yields to better understand the fundamentals of asset pricing both in the time series and in the cross section. Motivation for the former comes from variations of the Gordon growth model in which dividend yields can be written as the return minus the dividend’s growth rate (see, e.g., Fama and French (1988)), from consumption-based asset pricing models in which the firm’s dividends covary with aggregate consumption (e.g., Lucas (1978) and Shiller (1981)), and so forth. Additional motivation comes from cross-sectional heterogeneity in tax, agency, and asymmetric information considerations (e.g.,