The Dog That Did Not Bark: A Defense of Return Predictability
Top Cited Papers
- 22 September 2007
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Review of Financial Studies
- Vol. 21 (4) , 1533-1575
- https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm046
Abstract
If returns are not predictable, dividend growth must be predictable, to generate the observed variation in divided yields. I find that the absence of dividend growth predictability gives stronger evidence than does the presence of return predictability. Long-horizon return forecasts give the same strong evidence. These tests exploit the negative correlation of return forecasts with dividend-yield autocorrelation across samples, together with sensible upper bounds on dividend-yield autocorrelation, to deliver more powerful statistics. I reconcile my findings with the literature that finds poor power in long-horizon return forecasts, and with the literature that notes the poor out-of-sample R2 of return-forecasting regressions.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- On the Importance of Measuring Payout Yield: Implications for Empirical Asset PricingThe Journal of Finance, 2007
- The Myth of Long-Horizon PredictabilityThe Review of Financial Studies, 2006
- Stock Return Predictability: Is it There?The Review of Financial Studies, 2006
- Efficient tests of stock return predictability☆Journal of Financial Economics, 2006
- Predicting the Equity Premium Out of Sample: Can Anything Beat the Historical Average?Published by National Bureau of Economic Research ,2005
- Why long horizons? A study of power against persistent alternativesJournal of Empirical Finance, 2001
- Investing for the Long Run when Returns Are PredictableThe Journal of Finance, 2000
- THE STATISTICS OF LONG‐HORIZON REGRESSIONS REVISITED1Mathematical Finance, 1994
- How Big Is the Random Walk in GNP?Journal of Political Economy, 1988
- The Dividend-Price Ratio and Expectations of Future Dividends and Discount FactorsThe Review of Financial Studies, 1988