Search results

This paper examines the implications of standard barter models of market equilibrium for financial security returns in New Zealand. The key question addressed is: does the ‘equity premium puzzle’ of Mehra and Prescott (1985) found in the U.S. also hold in ?ew Zealand? To examine the existence of the equity premium puzzle, quarterly financial security returns and consumption data are examined from 1965 to 1997 to calibrate parameters in the Consumption Based Asset Pricing Model. Unlike much of the existing international evidence, this paper corrects for durable goods consumption following the assumptions of the model that all consumption be consumed in a given period. Numerical analyses indicate that the class of models examined are unable to generate equity premia consistent with historical estimates of the equity premium in New Zealand. Due to small sample variability however, while this discrepancy is material in size, the result is not statistically significant.

Myopic loss aversion, or the combination of loss aversion and frequent portfolio evaluation, has been argued to possibly be one of the factors behind the equity premium puzzle. The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative systematic test that looks at the relationship between inflation and equity premium to test for this theory.

Inflation and equity premium tends to be positively associated, both in standard rational-agents theoretical models and in simple empirical measures of correlation. Nonetheless, under the presence of nominal return evaluation, behavioral models such as myopic loss aversion do predict a negative causal relationship between those variables. This study aims to check this negative causal relationship. The identification strategy combines elements of two approaches: fixed effects regression on short-term returns and long-term least squares regression. As both methods have different strengths and weaknesses, and use different sources of data variation to compute their estimators, it is argued that the combination of these approaches provides a better identification strategy than each individual method.

This paper finds evidence for a negative relationship between inflation and equity premium in both methods, which supports myopic loss aversion theory. The magnitude of the coefficients is also relevant ranging from −0.23 to −0.80. However, it is also shown that these effects explain only a small part of equity premium observed variation, and are more prevalent in non-industrialized countries, which limits the scope of the theory.

The current method for testing myopic loss aversion theory is overly reliant on experimental evidence collected in the lab to estimate behavioral parameters and simulations. The authors complement these by providing an empirical study.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether self‐managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustees earn: the equity risk premium or any premium to the riskless rate of interest.

Using a sample of 100 SMSFs, the average annual returns since inception of the funds in the sample are compared with: the average annual equity risk premium since that time and the average yield of Commonwealth Government Securities since that time.

The investigation reveals: the SMSFs in the sample do not earn the equity risk premium and the SMSFs in the sample did not earn a premium to riskless rate of interest. This leads to the conclusion that the SMSFs have borne risk without commensurate reward. Research limitations/implications – The trustees' rationale for making particular investment decisions and the consistency of the portfolio structures with the risk profiles of the trustees are two areas that may be fruitfully explored in future research.

For SMSF trustees, a simple portfolio that divides assets between (unmanaged) index funds and risk‐free securities on the basis of trustees' risk aversion may generate better results than the existing portfolios. For policy makers, the relatively poor performance of SMSFs implies that the superannuation system as currently structured may not be generating returns that will maximize retirement incomes.

The paper provides the first comparison of SMSF returns with the equity risk premium and the riskless rate of interest measured at appropriate horizons.

The aim of this paper is to identify why the historically observed equity risk premium is larger than most researchers believe is reasonable. Whilst equity is undoubtedly riskier than government issued securities, the extent of the realised premium on equity has been characterised as a “puzzle”.

This paper measures the equity premium for a number of countries over the past 132 years, and then uses a pooled cross‐section and time‐series analysis to investigate the relationship between the equity premium and inflation.

This paper shows that the equity premium over the past 132 years has been significantly positively related to the rate of inflation and, therefore, has resulted in an equity premium that is substantially higher in the post 1914 period than before. This effect results from the relative performance of bonds and stocks during inflationary periods. The relatively poor performance of bonds during periods of inflation drives much of the equity premium.

Counterfactual simulations in the paper show that the average equity premium post 1914 would have been 4.61 per cent and not 7.34 per cent had the rate of inflation been zero. This is much closer to theoretically derived estimates.

The size of the equity premium has implications for investors' asset allocation decision. The importance of inflation suggests that in a low inflation environment, the expected equity premium will be considerably lower than the historically realised equity premium.

This paper establishes a clear link between the rate of inflation and the equity premium.

In the digital era, price transparency—the practice of disclosing cost breakdowns in product manufacturing—has become present on digital platforms. Although its benefits are well-documented and consumers should theoretically desire costless and relevant information for informed decision-making, this paper proposes that consumers may resist overly transparent pricing, particularly when it pertains to premium-priced (vs regular-priced) products from countries with high equity.

Our research comprises three experimental studies utilizing both student and representative online Prolific samples, covering various products and countries with different equity levels. Initially, a pilot study identifies an interpersonal should-want conflict induced by price transparency when purchasing premium-priced products, leading to information avoidance. Subsequent studies further explore this phenomenon by examining the moderating role of country equity and the mediating role of price unfairness perceptions.

Price transparency can backfire when purchasing premium-priced products due to the want-should conflict among consumers—the desire to receive disclosure of cost breakdowns versus the inclination not to view it. This conflict results in increased resistance to receiving transparent price information and decreased brand attitudes and purchase intentions, especially for products originating from high-equity countries. Heightened perceptions of price unfairness explain these dynamics.

The study primarily relies on experimental designs with limited sample sizes. To enhance the generalizability of the findings, incorporating large-scale real market data across diverse domains and countries would be beneficial.

Grounded in the should-want conflict and information avoidance theories, this paper uniquely explores the adverse effects of price transparency on digital platforms. We extend this by demonstrating that this conflict is influenced by country equity, where the perceived value added by the association of a product with a given country name affects whether consumers experience the conflict. Our investigation of perceived price unfairness further deepens our understanding of the nuanced effects of price transparency.

This study examines the empirical relationship between four broad antecedents of brand equity (branding strategy, brand structure, brand positioning and target market) and two separate dimensions of revenue premium: price premium and volume premium. Our modeling framework aims to explain how different antecedents of brand equity influence the realized velocity and margin of branded product sales, key drivers of operating cash flow. Our generalizable empirical analyses are based on a representative dataset of over 6,500 brands, across 200 consumer-packaged goods categories, spanning three years. We find that only 20% of brands command revenue premiums, for which volume premiums are the critical determinant. Branding strategies and brand structure primarily impact volume premium. In contrast, brand positioning has little effect. Target market substantially affects both premiums. Overall, these four elements account for 73% and 69% of the explained variations in price and volume premiums, respectively. This study provides generalizable, important, and novel insights for the theory and practice of brand management regarding price positioning and extending brands into new categories.

This paper seeks to develop a framework for understanding what drives customer‐based brand equity and price premium for grocery products.

The paper reviews empirical studies made within the area of brand equity and studies of grocery products. It compares and analyses the results from an explorative and qualitative field study with previous research on brand equity and food quality.

The study finds that brand equity and price premium focusing on the grocery sector specifically highlights the role of uniqueness, together with the four traditionally basic dimensions of brand equity proposed: awareness, qualities, associations and loyalty. Relevant brand associations (origin, health, environment/animal friendliness, organisational associations and social image), and quality attributes (taste, odour, consistency/texture, appearance, function, packaging and ingredients) specific to groceries are identified and proposed for future measurement scales and model validating research.

The development of a customer‐based brand equity model, that adds awareness, associations and loyalty to previous discussions on price and quality, brings to the table a more nuanced and multi‐faced tool for marketing of consumer packaged food.

The paper provides a framework for understanding, evaluating, measuring and managing brand equity for grocery products. As this paper presents the first conceptual brand equity framework for groceries, there is a contribution to research on food branding. Also, there is a contribution to the general field of brand equity as previous models have been very general.

The authors consider a variety of cryptocurrency and equity risk factors as potential forces that drive cryptocurrency returns and carry risk premiums. In a cross-section of 2,000 biggest cryptocurrencies during 2014–2020, only downside market risk, cryptocurrency size and cryptocurrency policy uncertainty factors are systematically priced with significant premiums. Cryptocurrencies, which have greater exposures to these factors, yield higher returns subsequently. Equity market risk, particularly equity downside market risk, appears to be more important than cryptocurrency market risk, suggesting greater linkages between cryptocurrency and equity markets than we used to think. Global and the US equity factors are more relevant for the cryptocurrency market than local factors from other markets. However, there is no evidence that exposure to momentum, volatility and Fama–French factors is compensated by higher returns.

This study employs a sample survey to determine and analyse the corporate finance practices of South African listed companies in relation to cost of capital, capital structure and capital budgeting decisions.The results of the survey are mostly in line with financial theory and are generally consistent with a number of other studies. This study finds that companies always or almost always employ DCF methods such as NPV and IRR to evaluate projects. Companies almost always use CAPM to determine the cost of equity and most companies employ either a strict or flexible target debt‐equity ratio. Furthermore, most practices of the South African corporate sector are in line with practices employed by US companies. This reflects the relatively highly developed state of the South African economy which belies its status as an emerging market. However, the survey has also brought to the fore a number of puzzling results which may indicate some gaps in the application of finance theory. There is limited use of relatively new developments such as real options, APV, EVA and Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore, the low target debt‐equity ratios reflected the exceptionally low use of debt by South African companies.

The purpose of this paper is to use some of the contributions of the option pricing theory to solve three outstanding puzzles in finance: the underdiversification puzzle, the volatility puzzle and the equity premium puzzle.

To approach the issue, this paper considers the applications of the option pricing theory to both sides of the corporate balance sheet. Applications to the left-hand side of the balance sheet has led to the real options theory that has expressed the value of a capital budgeting project as the sum of the values of its “discounted cash flow (DCF) method” and “real options.” This paper argues that, because the balance sheet must balance, the value of equity, which appears on the right-hand side of the balance sheet, should also be expressed as the sum of the values of its “DCF method” and “equity options.”

This proposed model of equity valuation solves the three outstanding puzzles in finance: the underdiversification puzzle, the volatility puzzle and the equity premium puzzle.

This study may not be able to explain the full extent of the three puzzles.

The dividend discount model of equity valuation needs to be augmented by an option component.

The community of finance scholars will become more confident of their scholarly work because three puzzles will be solved to a great extent.

To the best of author’s knowledge, the extant literature does not either solve any single one of the three puzzles through the contributions of option pricing theory or solve all three puzzles at the same time with a single solution. The originality of this paper is that it makes both of these contributions to the extant literature.