Cross–Sectoral Variation in Firm–Level Idiosyncratic Risk

We estimate firm–level idiosyncratic risk in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Our proxy for risk is the volatility of the portion of growth in sales or TFP which is not explained by either industry– or economy–wide factors, or firm characteristics systematically associated with growth itself. We find that idiosyncratic risk accounts for about 90% of the overall uncertainty faced by firms. The extent of cross–sectoral variation in idiosyncratic risk is remarkable. Firms in the most volatile sector are subject to at least three times as much uncertainty as firms in the least volatile. Our evidence indicates that idiosyncratic risk is higher in industries where the extent of creative destruction is likely to be greater.

Cross-sectoral variation in the volatility of plant-level idiosyncratic shocks

We estimate the volatility of plant–level idiosyncratic shocks in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Our measure of volatility is the variation in Revenue Total Factor Productivity which is not explained by either industry– or economy–wide factors, or by establishments’ characteristics. Consistent with previous studies, we find that idiosyncratic shocks are much larger than aggregate random disturbances, accounting for about 80% of the overall uncertainty faced by plants. The extent of cross–sectoral variation in the volatility of shocks is remarkable. Plants in the most volatile sector are subject to about six times as much idiosyncratic uncertainty as plants in the least volatile. We provide evidence suggesting that idiosyncratic risk is higher in industries where the extent of creative destruction is likely to be greater.

Latent Variable Models for Stochastic Discount Factors.

Latent variable models in finance originate both from asset pricing theory and time series analysis. These two strands of literature appeal to two different concepts of latent structures, which are both useful to reduce the dimension of a statistical model specified for a multivariate time series of asset prices. In the CAPM or APT beta pricing models, the dimension reduction is cross-sectional in nature, while in time-series state-space models, dimension is reduced longitudinally by assuming conditional independence between consecutive returns, given a small number of state variables. In this paper, we use the concept of Stochastic Discount Factor (SDF) or pricing kernel as a unifying principle to integrate these two concepts of latent variables. Beta pricing relations amount to characterize the factors as a basis of a vectorial space for the SDF. The coefficients of the SDF with respect to the factors are specified as deterministic functions of some state variables which summarize their dynamics. In beta pricing models, it is often said that only the factorial risk is compensated since the remaining idiosyncratic risk is diversifiable. Implicitly, this argument can be interpreted as a conditional cross-sectional factor structure, that is, a conditional independence between contemporaneous returns of a large number of assets, given a small number of factors, like in standard Factor Analysis. We provide this unifying analysis in the context of conditional equilibrium beta pricing as well as asset pricing with stochastic volatility, stochastic interest rates and other state variables. We address the general issue of econometric specifications of dynamic asset pricing models, which cover the modern literature on conditionally heteroskedastic factor models as well as equilibrium-based asset pricing models with an intertemporal specification of preferences and market fundamentals. We interpret various instantaneous causality relationships between state variables and market fundamentals as leverage effects and discuss their central role relative to the validity of standard CAPM-like stock pricing and preference-free option pricing.

Legal Institutions, Sectoral Heterogeneity, and Economic Development

Poor countries have lower PPP–adjusted investment rates and face higher relative prices of investment goods. It has been suggested that this happens either because these countries have a relatively lower TFP in industries producing capital goods, or because they are subject to greater investment distortions. This paper provides a micro–foundation for the cross–country dispersion in investment distortions. We first document that firms producing capital goods face a higher level of idiosyncratic risk than their counterparts producing consumption goods. In a model of capital accumulation where the protection of investors’ rights is incomplete, this difference in risk induces a wedge between the returns on investment in the two sectors. The wedge is bigger, the poorer the investor protection. In turn, this implies that countries endowed with weaker institutions face higher relative prices of investment goods, invest a lower fraction of their income, and end up being poorer. We find that our mechanism may be quantitatively important.