IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v31y2018i2p556-594..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Stocks Riskier over the Long Run? Taking Cues from Economic Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Doron Avramov
  • Scott Cederburg
  • Katarína Lučivjanská

Abstract

We study whether stocks are riskier or safer in the long run from the perspective of Bayesian investors who employ the long-run risk, habit formation, or prospect theory models to form prior beliefs about return dynamics. Economic theory delivers important guidance for long-run investment opportunities. Specifically, incorporating prior information from the habit formation or prospect theory models reinforces beliefs in mean reversion and inferences that stocks are safer over longer horizons. Conversely, investors with long-run risk priors perceive weaker mean reversion and riskier equities. Model-based information is particularly important for inferences about uncertainty in the dividend growth component of returns. Received May 18, 2016; editorial decision April 25, 2017 by Editor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh.

Suggested Citation

  • Doron Avramov & Scott Cederburg & Katarína Lučivjanská, 2018. "Are Stocks Riskier over the Long Run? Taking Cues from Economic Theory," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(2), pages 556-594.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:31:y:2018:i:2:p:556-594.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhx079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muhammad Jawad & Munazza Naz & Zaib Maroof & Nauman Waheed & Tahani Rashid, 2023. "Impact of stock investment on economic performance: a comparative study of on developed & developing economies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2013-2032, June.
    2. Scott Cederburg & Travis L Johnson & Michael S O’Doherty, 2023. "On the Economic Significance of Stock Return Predictability," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 619-657.
    3. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2021. "Stocks versus bonds for the long run when a riskless asset is available," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Anarkulova, Aizhan & Cederburg, Scott & O’Doherty, Michael S., 2022. "Stocks for the long run? Evidence from a broad sample of developed markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 409-433.
    5. Michaelides, Alexander & Zhang, Yuxin, 2022. "Life-cycle portfolio choice with imperfect predictors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Zhang, Yugui & Zhu, Jie & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2020. "Investing for the long run when expected equity premium is nonnegative," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Rubio-Ramírez, Juan Francisco & Petrella, Ivan & Antolin-Diaz, Juan, 2021. "Dividend Momentum and Stock Return Predictability: A Bayesian Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 16613, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Herculano, Miguel C. & Lütkebohmert, Eva, 2023. "Investor sentiment and global economic conditions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 134-152.
    9. Eric Jondeau & Michael Rockinger, 2019. "Predicting Long‐Term Financial Returns: VAR versus DSGE Model—A Horse Race," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 51(8), pages 2239-2291, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:31:y:2018:i:2:p:556-594.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.