Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Critical Finance Review > Vol 10 > Issue 3

Dividend Growth Does Not Help Predict Returns Compared To Likelihood-Based Tests: An Anatomy of the Dog

Erik Hjalmarsson, Department of Economics and the Centre for Finance, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, erik.hjalmarsson@economics.gu.se , Tamás Kiss, School of Business, Örebro University, Sweden, tamas.kiss@oru.se
 
Suggested Citation
Erik Hjalmarsson and Tamás Kiss (2021), "Dividend Growth Does Not Help Predict Returns Compared To Likelihood-Based Tests: An Anatomy of the Dog", Critical Finance Review: Vol. 10: No. 3, pp 445-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/104.00000105

Publication Date: 02 Aug 2021
© 2021 Erik Hjalmarsson and Tamas Kiss
 
Subjects
 
Keywords
C22G1
Predictive regressionsPresent-value relationshipStock-return predictability
 

Share

Download article
In this article:
1. Introduction 
2. Testing Return Predictability 
3. Size and Power of the Test 
4. Empirical Results 
5. Conclusion 
Appendix 
References 

Abstract

The dividend-growth based test of return predictability, proposed by Cochrane (2008), is similar to a likelihood-based test of the standard return-predictability model, treating the autoregressive (AR) parameter of the dividend-price ratio as known. In comparison to standard OLS-based inference, both tests can achieve power gains by using restrictions or prior information on the value of the AR parameter. When compared to the likelihood-based test, there are no power advantages for the dividend-growth based test. In common implementations, with the AR parameter set equal to the corresponding OLS estimate, Cochrane’s test suffers from severe size distortions.

DOI:10.1561/104.00000105