The international impact of productivity shocks

Even though many studies have confirmed the Feldstein-Horioka (1980) finding that savings and investment rates are highly correlated, there is no consensus on the major reason for this correlation. The purpose of this dissertation is to develop theoretical models and calibrate and simulate these to compare their implications to explain the observed time-series comovement between savings and investment in an attempt to show that this high correlation may stem from technological shocks.^ The dissertation is comprised of three studies. The first two studies construct overlapping-generations, two-economy models of saving and investment under conditions of perfect international capital mobility. The second study differs from the first by endogenizing the labor supply. Employing simulations, the models are used to generate time-series for savings and investment. These are then compared with the actual data for specific economies. The models show that productivity shocks produce a high correlation between savings and investment. Further, while the model with exogenous labor supply displays monotonic adjustment, the economy with endogenous labor supply adjusts cyclically.^ The third model, on the other hand, constructs a general equilibrium model for a small open economy. The study is based on two important elements: adjustment costs in investment and endogenous, recursive time preferences. Again, the simulation results show that the model generates, at least in a significant part of the adjustment path, a positive correlation between domestic savings and investment in response to a supply shock. ^

Liquidity and asset pricing: A comparison between three-factor and three-moment capital asset pricing models

Liquidity is an important attribute of an asset that investors would like to take into consideration when making investment decisions. However, the previous empirical evidence whether liquidity is a determinant of stock return is not unanimous. This dissertation provides a very comprehensive study about the role of liquidity in asset pricing using the Fama-French (1993) three-factor and Kraus and Litzenberger (1976) three-moment CAPM as models for risk adjustment. The relationship between liquidity and well-known determinants of stock returns such as size and book-to-market are also investigated. This study examines the liquidity and asset pricing issues for both intertemporal as well as cross-sectional data. ^ The results indicate an existence of a liquidity premium, i.e., less liquid stocks would demand higher rate of return than more liquid stocks. More specifically, a drop of 1 percent in liquidity is associated with a higher rate of return of about 2 to 3 basis points per month. Further investigation reveals that neither the Fama-French three-factor model nor the three-moment CAPM captures the liquidity premium. Finally, the results show that well-known determinants of stock return such as size and book-to-market do not serve as proxy for liquidity. ^ Overall, this dissertation shows that a liquidity premium exists in the stock market and that liquidity is a distinct effect, and is not influenced by the presence of non-market factors, market factors and other stock characteristics.^

Liquidity, governance and adverse selection in asset pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. ^ In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company's shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity - in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll's (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.^

Liquidity, Governance and Adverse Selection in Asset Pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company’s shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity – in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll’s (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.