Generalized Systematic Risk

We generalize the concept of .systematic risk to a broad class of risk measures potentially accounting for high distribution moments, downside risk, rare disasters, as well as other risk attributes. We offer two different approaches. First is an equilibrium framework generalizing the Capital Asset Pricing Model, two-fund separation, and the security market line. Second is an axiomatic approach resulting in a systematic risk measure as the unique solution to a risk allocation problem. Both approaches lead to similar results extending the traditional beta to capture multiple dimensions of risk. The results lend themselves naturally to empirical investigation.

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.

Macroeconomic Risk Factors and the Role of Mispriced Credit in the Returns from International Real Estate Securities

The benefits of diversification from international real estate securities are generally well established. However, the drivers of international real estate securities returns are insufficiently understood. We jointly examine the empirical implications of three major international asset pricing models that account for broad macroeconomic risk factors. In addition, we develop the hypothesis that an indicator of mispriced credit is significant in explaining the time series variation in international real estate securities returns. We employ the returns generated by a large sample of firms from 20 countries over the period 1999 to 2011 to test our hypothesis. We find support for the predictions of the major international asset pricing models. We also find evidence in favour of our hypothesised link between local credit conditions and the performance of international real estate securities.

Innovations in Hospitality Human Resources: Cases from the U.S. Lodging Industry

[Excerpt] Today’s hospitality and tourism companies face complex, dramatically shifting challenges, most notably the need to compete for increasingly sophisticated customers in a global, fluid marketplace. To attract and retain the loyal cadre of customers that will ensure the organization’s success, service companies such as hospitality organizations must employ technologically advanced, yet margin sensitive, product and pricing strategies and practices that will differentiate themselves to their intended market. Even more importantly, these service organizations need to devise strategies that will capture and retain the most important yet, from a financial perspective, unrecognized asset on the balance sheet: the employees that design and deliver the service to the customer base. Human resource strategists (i.e. Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Cappelli & Crocker-Hefter, 1996; O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000; Pfeffer, 1998; Ulrich, 1997), including those who take a hospitality perspective (i.e. Baumann, 2000; Hume, 2000; Worcester, 1999) advocate a renewed attention to the investment in employees or “human capital” as a source of strategic competitive advantage.

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.

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.