In some of my more gamesome moments I have challenged my students to produce an article about the equity risk premium, which made a useful contribution to our understanding of the way financial markets work. So far the challenge has not been met. This may reflect the modesty and good manners of those I teach but also, I hope and believe, the fact they are too sensible to wish to defend the way this often ill-defined and generally useless concept has been habitually discussed. In practice, comments on the ERP seem to me to have been a source of confusion and error rather than illumination.

The ERP can be defined in at least two ways. One is the historic difference between the returns on bonds and equities and another is the expected difference in these returns. Alternatively, the “risk-free rate” can be used in place of bonds. Read more

A few weeks ago, I promised to write about claims that the stock market could be valued by comparing earnings yields to bond yields. This approach is sometimes called the “Fed model”. This was fashionable in the 1990s and seems to have some followers even today. It is not only nonsense but is the most egregious piece of “data mining” that I have encountered in the 60-plus years I have been studying financial marketsRead more

Competition is essential if capitalism is to work well for the benefit of the consumers and the economy in general. It is, however, much disliked, notably by businessmen and trade unionists. The present system of management remuneration has very similar impacts on the economy as a decline in competition. Companies have a great deal of short-term monopoly power and chief executives are encouraged by their pay packages to exploit this more aggressively than they used to do. The result is a rise in profit margins, a fall in investment and productivity and a structural savings’ surplus in the business sector, which is the corollary of the structural fiscal deficits of the UK and the US.

I would like to see the damage done to our economies by these perverse incentives understood and the system changed. I was therefore pleased to contribute to a booklet published by the Trades Union Congress on the need for reform (though I pleaded in vain for its title, “Beyond Shareholder Value”, to be changed). As the author of one of the chapters I was asked to participate in a discussion organised for its launch. Read more

In the past governments have funded their deficits – for example, they have borrowed in the bond market rather than through treasury bills. This is despite the fact that, for the past 80 years, the rate of interest on bonds has been greater than that on Treasury bills; that is, we have had an upward sloping yield curve.

I suggested in a recent blog that this was because governments correctly perceived that there were considerable economic risks in not funding, and that it was worth paying the additional cost to avoid these risks. Quantitative easing, which is a form of underfunding, must therefore have increased these risks. Defenders of QE need either to argue that these risks have not risen or that the benefits we have received from QE outweigh the rise in risks. To be consistent, those who hold that no additional risks have been incurred must now hold that governments should not have funded in the past and must now stop. But their silence is deafening, and such views are implausible, being held, I think, in the hope of dissuading discussion rather than from any conviction that they would survive much debate. Read more

While it is sometimes useful to make a distinction between treasuries and central banks, they are fundamentally both part of government. When central banks buy bonds as part of quantitative easing, governments are in practice ceasing to fund, ie, they are issuing short-term rather than long-term debt. If this is potentially harmful, we need to worry; if not, we need to ask why have governments funded in the past? Read more

US gross domestic product was increased last year by much more than the growth of the economy. This sleight of hand was achieved by changing the way GDP is measured. The UK is due for a similar make-over this year. Reality won’t change and we need to be alert to the comments of those who will think it has.

“Nearly all scientists believe that there is a clear-cut distinction between fact and theory…William Whewell (1794-1866) denied that any such sharp distinction existed.” Peter Medawar, the Nobel laureate, whom I am quoting, agreed with the denial; and, as GDP data are generally considered to be facts, the revisions show that Whewell was spot on. The calculation of GDP depends on the theoretical model on which it is based. The change in GDP involves a change in the model being used and, in my view, the new model is worse than the old one. Read more

The US seems expensive relative to other major stock markets. As it is probable that cheaper markets will give better returns, this implies that investors should underweight US equities. This conclusion applies, however, only over the longer term. Timing matters and this involves other considerations.

Chart one illustrates that G5 stock markets are strongly correlated with the US and so, to a large extent, markets go up and down together. The chart also shows that this tendency has been strengthening over time. Read more

Abenomics, the term given to the reform package Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe launched to revive the country’s economy, is based on two myths. One is that the economy has performed badly and the second is that this non-existent failure has been due to deflation. Despite its lack of intellectual justification, the attempt to stop deflation has been a success as the accompanying rhetoric and monetary policy have produced yen weakness. This was an essential step towards solving Japan’s fiscal problem and, as the rhetoric has been about deflation rather than devaluation, the dramatic weakness of the currency has been achieved without international opprobrium.

Over time the devaluation should result in an improved current account. This will allow the fiscal deficit to fall while the economy moves ahead, but it is not enough on its own. The other essential is to reduce the cash flow surplus of the business sector. Having achieved success in step one, largely by accident, there is a chance that Abenomics will succeed in step two. If it does, it is again likely to be an accident. Read more

Ian McCafferty, an external member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, believes “Britain’s ‘productivity puzzle’ will persist as the economy recovers because much of the decline in output is structurally entrenched.” As a result, Mr McCafferty believes that the Bank of England “should not ‘hold back too long’ on interest rate rises”.

Scarcely a day passes without some reference to the UK’s “productivity puzzle” and a claim that the poor productivity is “inexplicable”. This reflects a failure to understand how and why the economy has changed. Poor productivity is so readily explicable that it should cause no surprise. It is, as I have sought to explain before, the natural result of the change in management incentives. Read more

Cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio (Cape) appears to be a valid way to measure the value of the US stock market, but this does not mean that it can sensibly be used for other indices. As I explained in a previous blogpost, Cape is only valid if it can pass two tests: first, that the real return on equities has been mean reverting; and second, that profit margins have also been mean reverting and have rotated quickly around their average.

Real returns on equities has been less strongly mean reverting in other markets than they had been in the US. This weakens the case for Cape in other major stock markets, but does not, I think, necessarily rule it out. Even if returns would otherwise have been mean reverting, they will not have been if countries had suffered unexpected and catastrophic losses, such as occurred in world wars. I had already explained in Growth and returns, another blogpost, that these losses were the probable explanation for the exceptionally low returns on equity investment in the first half of the 20th Century in countries such as Germany and Japan. Read more