How much do dividend-growth vs. discount-rate shocks account for stock price variations?
An under-appreciated point occurred to me while preparing for my Coursera class and to comment on Daniel Greewald, Martin Lettau and Sydney Ludvigsson's nice paper "
Origin of Stock Market Fluctuations" at the last
NBER EFG meeting
The answer is, it depends the horizon and the measure. 100% of the variance of
price dividend ratios corresponds to expected return (discount rate) shocks, and none to dividend growth (cash flow) shocks. 50% of the variance of
one-year returns corresponds to cashflow shocks. And 100%
of
long-run price variation corresponds to from cashflow shocks, not expected return shocks. These facts all coexist
I think there is some confusion on the point. If nothing else, this makes for a good problem set question.
The last point is easiest to see just with a plot. Prices and dividends are cointegrated. Prices correspond to dividends and expected returns. Dividends have a unit root, but expected returns are stationary. Over the long run prices will not deviate far from dividends. So 100% of long-enough run price variation must come from dividend variation, not expected returns.
Ok, a little more carefully, with equations.
A quick review:
The most basic VAR for asset returns is
\[
\Delta d_{t+1} = b_d \times dp_{t}+\varepsilon_{t+1}^{d}
\]
\[
dp_{t+1} = \phi \times dp_{t} +\varepsilon_{t+1}^{dp}
\]
Using only dividend yields dp, dividend growth is basically unforecastable
\( b_d \approx 0\) and \( \phi\approx0.94 \) and the shocks are conveniently uncorrelated.
The behavior of returns follows from the identity, that you need more dividends or a higher price to get a return,
\[
r_{t+1}\approx-\rho dp_{t+1}+dp_{t}+\Delta d_{t+1}%
\]
(This is the Campbell-Shiller return approximation, with \(\rho \approx 0.96\).) Thus, the implied regression
of returns on dividend yields,
\[
r_{t+1} = b_r \times dp_{t}+\varepsilon_{t+1}^{r}
\]
has \(b_r = (1-\rho\phi)+0 = 1-0.96\times0.94 = 0.1\) and a shock negatively correlated with dividend yield shocks and positively correlated with dividend growth shocks.
The impulse response function for this VAR naturally suggests "cashflow" (dividend) and "expected return" shocks, (d/p). (Sorry for recycling old points, but not everyone may know this.)
Three propositions:
- The variance of p/d is 100% risk premiums, 0% cashflow shocks
Iterate forward the return identity, to get
\[
dp_{t} =\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\rho^{j-1}r_{t+j}-\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\rho
^{j-1}\Delta d_{t+j}
\]
multiply by \(dp_t\) and take expectations (all variables are demeaned)
\[\sigma^{2}\left( \log\frac{P_{t}}{D_{t}}\right) =\sigma^{2}\left(
dp_{t}\right) =\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\rho^{j-1}cov(dp_{t},r_{t+j})-\sum
_{t=1}^{\infty}\rho^{j-1}cov(dp_{t},\Delta d_{t+j}), \]
But \(b_d \approx 0 \), so the dividend growth terms are all zero, and 100% of the variance of price-dividend ratios corresponds to time-varying expected returns. (I know this will bore people familiar with it and befuddle those who are not.
"Discount rates"
has a bit more leisurely review and citations)
But
- The variance of returns is 50% due to risk premiums, 50% due to
cashflows.
\[
r_{t+1}=-\rho dp_{t+1}+dp_{t}+\Delta d_{t+1}%
\]
\[
\varepsilon_{t+1}^{r} =-\rho\varepsilon_{t+1}^{dp}+\varepsilon_{t+1}^{d}
\]
\[
\sigma^{2}\left( \varepsilon_{t+1}^{r}\right) =\rho^{2}\sigma^{2}\left(
\varepsilon_{t+1}^{dp}\right) +\sigma^{2}\left( \varepsilon_{t+1}^{d}\right)
\]
The variance of the two shocks comes out very close to a 50/50 decomposition at an annual horizon.
It's a lot more expected return at a daily horizon, and less at longer horizons.
Here I use the fact that dividend growth and dividend yield shocks are basically uncorrelated.
Why are returns and p/d so different?
Current cash flow shocks affect returns. But a shock to dividends, when prices rise
at the same time, does not affect the dividend price ratio. (This is the essence of the
Campbell-Ammer return decomposition.)
The third proposition is less familiar:
- The long-run variance of stock market values (and returns) is
100% due to cash flow shocks and none to expected return or discount rate shocks.
Here's why:
\[
\Delta p_{t+1} =-dp_{t+1}+dp_{t}+\Delta d_{t+1}
\]
\[
p_{t+k}-p_{t} =-dp_{t+k}+dp_{t}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}\Delta d_{t+j}
\]
so as k gets big,
\[
{var} (p_{t+k}-p_{t}) \rightarrow 2 {var}(dp_t) + k {var}(\Delta d_{t})
\]
The first term approaches a constant, but the second term keeps growing. As above the central fact is that P and D are cointegrated while expected returns are stationary.
This is related to a point made by Fama and French in their
Equity Premium paper. Long run average returns are driven by long run dividend growth plus the average value of the dividend yield. The difference in valuation -- higher prices for given set of dividends -- can affect returns in a sample, as higher prices for a given set of dividends boost returns. But that mechanism can't last. (
Avdis and Wachter have a nice recent paper formalizing this point.) It's related to a similar point made often by Bob Shiller: Long run investors should buy stocks for the dividends.
A little more generality as this is the new bit.
\[ p_{t+k}-p_t = dp_{t+k}-dp_t + \sum_{j=1}^{k}\Delta d _{t+j} \]
\[ p_{t+k}-p_t = (\phi^{k}-1)dp_t + \sum_{j=1}^{k}\phi^{k-j} \varepsilon^{dp}_{t+j} + \sum_{j=1}^{k} \varepsilon^d _{t+j} \]
\[ var(p_{t+k}-p_t) = \frac{(1-\phi^{k})^2}{1-\phi^2} \sigma^2(\varepsilon^{dp}) + \frac{(1-\phi^{2k})}{1-\phi^2} \sigma^2(\varepsilon^{dp}) + k\sigma^2(\varepsilon^d) \]
\[var(p_{t+k}-p_t) = 2\frac{(1-\phi^{k})}{1-\phi^2} var(\varepsilon^{dp}_{t+1}) + k var(\varepsilon^d_{t+j})\]
So you can see the last bit takes over. It doesn't take over as fast as you might think. Here's a graph using sample values,
At a one year horizon, it's just about 50/50. The dividend shocks eventually take over, at rate 1/k. But at 50 years, it's still about 80/20.
Exercise for the interested reader/finance professor looking for problem set questions: Do the same thing for long horizon returns, \( r_{t+1}+r_{t+2}+...+r_{t+k} \) using \(r_{t+1} = -\rho dp_{t+1} + dp_t + \Delta d_ {t+1} \) It's not so pretty, but you can get a closed form expression here too, and again dividend shocks take over in the long run.
Be forewarned, the long run return has all sorts of pathological properties. But nobody holds assets forever, without eating some of the dividends.
Disclaimer: Notice I have tried to say "associated with" or "correspond to" and not "caused by" here! This is just about facts. The facts have just as easy a "behavioral" interpretation about fads and bubbles in prices as they do a "rationalist" interpretation. Exercise 2: Write the "behavioralist" and then "rationalist" introduction / interpretation of these facts. Hint: they reverse cause and effect about prices and expected returns, and whether people in the market have rational expectations about expected returns.
