by EUGENE F. FAMA

In his NY Times blog Paul Krugman attacks my piece on the stimulus plan.

Again, here is my argument in three sentences.

1. Bailouts and stimulus plans must be financed.

2. If the financing takes the form of additional government debt, the added debt displaces other uses of the same funds.

3. Thus, stimulus plans only enhance incomes when they move resources from less productive to more productive uses.

Are any of these statements incorrect?

(Read the full entry)

EFF: The evidence that short-sellers actually know something about market prices is weak. And even if they do, they only push prices more quickly to lower equilibrium levels, so they have little effect on the returns of long-term investors.

(Read the full entry)

EFF/KRF: Perhaps, but you would have to put a high probability on deflation. Severe downturns in business activity do not always result in deflation. For example, during the depression of the 1930s, some countries experienced deflation and some experienced hyperinflation. There is lots of talk currently about deflation, but the huge commitments the Fed has made recently seem to be pushing toward higher inflation.

(Read the full entry)

EFF/KRF: The two questions are related. Throughout the period from 1926 to now, small stocks have higher market βs (sensitivity to market returns) than big stocks. This means small stocks go up more in good market times and down more in bad market times. In terms of market sensitivity (β), small stocks are riskier than big stocks. Prior to 1963, value stocks have higher market βs than growth stocks, and during this period value stocks tend to move up or down more than the market. After 1963, value stocks have lower market βs than growth stocks, and after 1963 value stocks tend to move up or down less than the market. It is important to emphasize, however, that in the three-factor model of Fama and French, market β is not sufficient to describe the risks of common stocks. In the three-factor model, value stocks are always riskier than growth stocks because they are more exposed to a value-growth risk factor that is separate from market risk and is compensated differently in expected returns. In the three-factor model, portfolios of value and growth stocks have similar exposure to the market. This means that when there are big market moves, like those of the last few months, value and growth stocks (or at least diversified portfolios of value and growth stocks) move in much the same way. In other words, big market moves tend to dominate the returns on value and growth stocks alike.

EFF: Every market determined price is an equilibrium price that should take account of all information available at the time the price is set. (This is the definition of market efficiency.) But things inevitably change, and equilibrium prices change along with them. All we can say about the recent market turmoil is that the volatility of information and its implications for forecasts of profitability must be quite high.

KRF: Market efficiency does not imply prices cannot change. It does not even say they cannot change by a lot. The key question is whether we should have known the Dow would drop from 14,000 to 7500. Some who made fortunes by anticipating the drop seem to have convinced many observers that the outcome was obvious, but that is just history being written by the victor. Unlike the technology boom of 1999-2000, I don't recall lots of conversations in which people struggled to understand why the Dow was at 14,000.

EFF/KRF: When market volatility goes up, cross-country and cross-asset-class correlations tend to go up. When market volatility is normal, events that are specific to countries, asset classes, or individual firms are a larger part of total volatility and correlations are low. When market volatility increases relative to other sources of volatility, the common variation becomes a larger part of total volatility and correlations go up. This effect has been particularly apparent recently because volatility has been extraordinarily high.

EFF/KRF: There is no evidence that market timing in response to economic events enhances expected returns. The market tends to lead economic activity. Stock prices tend to fall in advance of recessions and rise in advance of economic upturns. To time markets successfully, you have to come up with better forecasts of economic activity than those already built into stock prices. We don't know anyone who can do this.

Moreover, investors who try to time the market by selling after news of a recession is already in prices are probably reducing their expected returns. Although realized returns are too volatile to make strong statements, there is some evidence that expected stock returns are relatively high during recessions and low during expansions. One can avoid the higher risk of stocks during recessions, but apparently only by passing up higher expected returns.

by EUGENE F. FAMA

There has been lots of response to my little essay on bailouts and stimulus plans. I will only comment on the negative ones that I think have merit and are overlooked in my original paper.

First, however, I want to restate my argument in simple terms.

1. Bailouts and stimulus plans must be financed.

2. If the financing takes the form of additional government debt, the added debt displaces other uses of the funds.

3. Thus, stimulus plans only enhance incomes when they move resources from less productive to more productive uses.

Are any of these statements incorrect?

(Read the full entry)

by EUGENE F. FAMA

There is an identity in macroeconomics. It says that in any given year private investment must equal the sum of private savings, corporate savings (retained earnings), and government savings (the government surplus, which is more likely negative, that is, a deficit),

In a global economy the quantities in the equation are global. This means the equation need not hold in a particular country, but it must hold in the world as a whole. For example, in recent years private investment in the US has been greater than the sum of private, corporate, and government savings in the US. This means the US has been importing savings from the rest of the world (by selling US securities to the rest of the world). But the equation always holds for the world as whole.

(Read the full entry)

EFF/KRF: The Economist provides unusually clear and accurate analysis of economic and financial issues. You can download podcasts from The Economist on iTunes.

by EUGENE F. FAMA

The financial sector provides the grease that makes the transfer of savings to productive investments more efficient. This role is critical for the health of the economy.

Government injections of equity capital into financial institutions can make sense if the whole financial system is in danger. But it is important that injections are at minimum cost to taxpayers, that is, without unnecessary subsidies. Problems on this score arise when the funds go primarily to prop up the value of a financial institution's existing debt. In this case the true amount of new equity capital is less than the injection of funds by the government, and the subsidy to debt holders is a loss to taxpayers with no clear offsetting benefits. My purpose here is to describe how this problem arises and how it can be avoided.

(Read the full entry)