Asset Management and Investment Banking

We find evidence that conflicts of interest are pervasive in the asset management business owned by investment banks. Using data from 1990 to 2008, we compare the alphas of mutual funds, hedge funds, and institutional funds operated by investment banks and non-bank conglomerates. We find that, while no difference exists in performance by fund type, being owned by an investment bank reduces alphas by 46 basis points per year in our baseline model. Making lead loans increases alphas, but the dispersion of fees across portfolios decreases alphas. The economic loss is $4.9 billion per year.

Serving More Segments and Offering More Products: What Are the Costs and Where Are the Profits?

Making more money involves more than targeting new customer segments and offering new services.

Is Trading Behavior Stable Across Contexts? Evidence from Style and Multi-Style Investors

In this paper we study priming of identity within the context of inherent vs. contextual financial decision making. We use a sample of individual trading accounts in equity-style funds taken from one fund family to test the hypothesis that trading styles are inherent vs. contextual. Our sample contains investors who invest either in a growth fund, a value fund, or both. We document behavioral differences between growth fund investors and value fund investors. We find that their trades depend on past returns in different ways: growth fund investors tend towards momentum trading and value fund investors tend towards contrarian trading. These differences may be due to inherent clientele characteristics, including beliefs about market prices, specific personality traits and cognitive strategies that cause them to self-select into one or the other style. We use a sample of investors that trade in both types of funds to test this proposition. Consistent with the contextual hypothesis, we find that investors who hold both types of funds trade growth fund shares differently than value fund shares.

Short-term Trading in Long-term Funds: Implications for Financial Managers

Most hospitality firms do not consider managing stock portfolios to be a main part of their operations. They are in the service business, using their real assets and the services provided by employees to create valuable experiences for guests. However, the need to focus on stock investments arises through those employees. Employees consistently rank benefits, including retirement benefits, among the top five contributors to job satisfaction and as a key consideration in accepting a job.1 It is not surprising, then, that more than 90 percent of companies with 500 or more employees offer retirement plans. The five largest hotel companies in the U.S. have over $10 billion in assets under management in their retirement plans, making these plans a key component in retirement investment decisions.

Leverage, Volatile Future Earnings Growth and Expected Stock Returns

We provide theory and evidence to complement Choi's [RFS, 2013] important new insights on the returns to equity in `value' firms. We show that higher future earnings growth ameliorates the value-reducing effect of leverage and, because the market for earnings is incomplete, reduces the earnings-risk sensitivity of the default option. Ceteris paribus, a levered firm with low (high) earnings growth is more sensitive to the first (second) of these effects thus generating higher (lower) expected returns. We demonstrate this by modeling equity as an Asian-style call option on net earnings and find significant empirical support for our hypotheses.

Future Earnings Growth Volatility and the Value Premium

The value premium is well established in empirical asset pricing, but to date there is little understanding as to its fundamental drivers. We use a stochastic earnings valuation model to establish a direct link between the volatility of future earnings growth and firm value. We illustrate that risky earnings growth affects growth and value firms differently. We provide empirical evidence that the volatility of future earnings growth is a significant determinant of the value premium. Using data on individual firms and characteristic-sorted test portfolios, we also find that earnings growth volatility is significant in explaining the cross-sectional variation of stock returns. Our findings imply that the value premium is the rational consequence of accounting for risky earnings growth in the firm valuation process.

Do Individuals or Firms Matter More? The Case of Patent Generation

This paper studies the relative importance of individual inventors’ human capital and firms’ organizational capital in promoting a firm’s innovation output. We decompose the variation in innovation output into inventor- and firm-specific components. Inventors’ human capital is about 13 times as important as firms’ organizational capital in explaining a firm’s innovation performance in terms of patent counts and citations, while inventors’ human capital is only about the same as important when explaining the firm’s innovation styles in terms of patent exploratory and exploitive scores. In the cross section, inventors contribute more to innovation output when they are better networked, in firms with higher inventor mobility, in industries in which innovation is more difficult to achieve, and in publicly traded firms. Additional tests suggest that our main findings continue to hold after accounting for inventors’ endogenous moving. This paper highlights the importance of individual inventors in enhancing firm innovation and sheds new light on the theory of the firm.

Living with Terminal Capitalization Rates: A Look at Real Estate Valuation Model Parameter Setting

This paper examines assumptions about future prices used in real estate applications of DCF models. We confirm both the widespread reliance on an ad hoc rule of increasing period-zero capitalization rates by 50 to 100 basis points to obtain terminal capitalization rates and the inability of the rule to project future real estate pricing. To understand how investors form expectations about future prices, we model the spread between the contemporaneously period-zero going-in and terminal capitalization rates and the spread between terminal rates assigned in period zero and going-in rates assigned in period N. Our regression results confirm statistical relationships between the terminal and next holding period going-in capitalization rate spread and the period-zero discount rate, although other economically significant variables are statistically insignificant. Linking terminal capitalization rates by assumption to going-in capitalization rates implies investors view future real estate pricing with myopic expectations. We discuss alternative specifications devoid of such linkage that align more with a rational expectations view of future real estate pricing.

Findings from the 2015 Institutional Real Estate Capital Allocations Monitor

Since 2013, the Baker Program in Real Estate and Hodes Weill & Associates have co-sponsored the Institutional Real Estate Capital Allocations Monitor (the “Allocations Monitor”). The Allocations Monitor was created to conduct a comprehensive annual assessment of institutional allocations to real estate investments through analyzing trends and collecting survey responses of institutional portfolios and allocations by region, type, and size of institution. The Allocations Monitor reports on the role of real estate investments in institutional portfolios, and the impact of institutional allocation trends on the investment management industry.

Futures Shock: Are Greedy Brokers Ruining The Economy?

[Excerpt] In a recent public relations document, the New York Stock Exchange defines its mission statement as to: “Support the capital-raising and asset management process by providing the highest quality and most cost-effective, self-regulated marketplace for the trading of financial instruments.” The common thread that runs through this and similar statements made by organized financial markets from Frankfurt to Tokyo is that they hold as their primary goals to help companies raise capital and to provide a liquid and efficient aftermarket for those securities.

REIT Capital Structure Choices: Preparation Matters

Sun, Titman, and Twite (2015) find that capital structure risks, namely high leverage and a high share of short-term debt, reduced the cumulative total return of US REITs in the 2007-2009 financial crisis. We find that mitigating capital structure risks ahead of the crisis by reducing leverage and extending debt maturity in 2006, was associated with a significantly higher cumulative total return 2007-2009, after controlling for the levels of those variables at the start of the financial crisis. We further identify two systematic cross-sectional differences between those REITs that reduced capital structure risks prior to the financial crisis and those that did not: the exposure to capital structure risks and the strength of corporate governance. On balance, our findings are consistent with the interpretation of risk-reducing adjustments to capital structure ahead of the crisis as a component of managerial skill and discipline with significant implications for firm value during the crisis.

The Consequences of REIT Index Membership for Return Patterns

We study the impact of S&P index membership on REIT stock returns. Given the hybrid nature of REITs, their returns may become more like those of other indexed stocks and less like those of their underlying properties. The existing literature does not offer clear predictions on these potential outcomes. Taking advantage of the inclusion of REITs in major S&P indexes starting in 2001, we find that shared index membership significantly increases the correlation between REIT returns after controlling for the stock characteristics that determine index membership. We also document that index membership enhances the link between REIT stock returns and the performance of the underlying real estate, consistent with improved pricing efficiency. REIT investors appear to be able to enjoy the benefits of improved visibility and liquidity associated with index membership as well as the exposure to underlying real estate markets and the related benefits of diversification.