SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2963
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Post by Barry Barnitz » Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:43 pm

Hi all:

The SSRN top ten financial papers, measured by hits for papers announced over the past sixty days, include a number of papers that may be of interest to investors.

Papers dealing with portfolio withdrawals

6. Pfau, Wade D. and Kitces, Michael E., Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glide-Path (September 12, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2324930 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2324930

Abstract:
This study explores the issue of what is an appropriate default equity glide-path for client portfolios during the retirement phase of the life cycle. We find, surprisingly, that rising equity glide-paths in retirement – where the portfolio starts out conservative and becomes more aggressive through the retirement time horizon – have the potential to actually reduce both the probability of failure and the magnitude of failure for client portfolios. This result may appear counter-intuitive from the traditional perspective, which is that equity exposure should decrease throughout retirement as the retiree’s time horizon (and life expectancy) shrinks and mortality looms. Yet the conclusion is actually entirely logical when viewed from the perspective of what scenarios cause a client’s retirement to “fail” in the first place. In scenarios that threaten retirement sustainability – e.g., an extended period of poor returns in the first half of retirement – a declining equity exposure over time will lead the retiree to have the least in stocks if/when the good returns finally show up in the second half of retirement (assuming the entire retirement period does not experience continuing poor returns). With a rising equity glide-path, the retiree is less exposed to losses when most vulnerable in early retirement and the equity exposure is greater by the time subsequent good returns finally show up. In turn, this helps to sustain greater retirement income over the entire time period. Conversely, using a rising equity glide-path in scenarios where equity returns are good early on, the retiree is so far ahead that their subsequent asset allocation choices do not impact the chances to achieve the original retirement goal.


Forum discussion: Bogleheads • View topic - "Rising Equity Glide Path" ?


9. Frank, Larry R. and Mitchell, John B. and Pfau, Wade D., Lifetime Expected Income Breakeven Comparison between SPIAs and Managed Portfolios (August 29, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2317857 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2317857

Abstract:
This paper provides insight and guidance for the retiree decision making between whether to annuitize or manage their retirement savings. Tables and graphs demonstrate the breakeven age between annuitizing with a single premium immediate annuity (SPIA) versus managing a portfolio and the likelihood of outliving the breakeven cash flow sums for various annuitization ages (65 to 85), longevity percentiles of Period Life Tables, and portfolio allocations.

What are breakeven asset allocations below which a SPIA provides a higher lifetime expected total cash flow? Managed portfolios retain a balance at death while SPIAs have none. How does the cash flow breakeven comparison change when that balance is, or is not, considered? Does age matter in the decision to switch from a managed portfolio to a SPIA? Is there a different conclusion if different tables are used (Social Security Table "General Population" vs Annuity 2000 Table ("Healthy Population"))? How do good vs median vs poor markets affect the breakeven comparison? How do fees affected the comparison? Can the Annual Payout Rate (APR) of a SPIA be useful in the decision making process?


Forum discussion : Bogleheads • View topic - Best age to purchase SPIAs ?


Papers dealing with market factors

5. Asness, Clifford S. and Frazzini, Andrea and Pedersen, Lasse Heje, Quality Minus Junk (August 21, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2312432 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312432

Abstract:
We define a quality security as one that has characteristics that, all-else-equal, an investor should be willing to pay a higher price for: stocks that are safe, profitable, growing, and well managed. High-quality stocks do have higher prices on average, but not by a very large margin. Perhaps because of this puzzlingly modest impact of quality on price, high-quality stocks have high risk-adjusted returns. Indeed, a quality-minus-junk (QMJ) factor that goes long high-quality stocks and shorts low-quality stocks earns significant risk-adjusted returns in the U.S. and globally across 24 countries. The price of quality – i.e., how much investors pay extra for higher quality stocks – varies over time, reaching a low during the internet bubble. Further, a low price of quality predicts a high future return of QMJ.



Papers dealing with performance

2. Bortolotti, Bernardo and Fotak, Veljko and Megginson, William L., The Sovereign Wealth Fund Discount: Evidence from Public Equity Investments (September 17, 2013). Paolo Baffi Centre Research Paper No. 2013-140; FEEM Working Paper No. 22.2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2322745 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2322745


Abstract:
Using a sample of 1,018 Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) equity investments in publicly traded firms and a control sample of 5,975 transactions by private-sector financial institutions over 1980-2012, we find that announcement-period abnormal returns of SWF investments are positive, but lower than those of comparable private-sector investments by approximately 2.67 percentage points. We do not find evidence of long-term stock price performance of SWF investment targets differing from that of private-sector investment targets. We do find, however, significant differences among SWFs which are only partially captured by the short-term market reaction: firms acquired by passive funds tend to underperform over the following three years, while positive abnormal returns are associated with actively monitoring SWFs. We conclude that SWFs’ corporate governance role tends to affect the value of the firm.


4. Jenkinson, Tim and Jones, Howard and Martinez, Jose Vicente, Picking Winners? Investment Consultants' Recommendations of Fund Managers (September 17, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2327042 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2327042

Abstract:
U.S. plan sponsors managing over $13 trillion rely on investment consultants for advice about which funds to invest in. Using survey data, we analyze what drives consultants’ recommendations of institutional funds, what impact these recommendations have on flows, and how much value they add to plan sponsors. We examine the aggregate recommendations of consultants with a share of over 90% of the U.S. consulting market. We find that consultants’ recommendations of funds are driven largely by soft factors, rather than the funds’ past performance, and that their recommendations have a very significant effect on fund flows, but we find no evidence that these recommendations add value to plan sponsors.


7. Bebchuk, Lucian A. and Brav, Alon and Jiang, Wei, The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism (July 9, 2013). Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 13-66. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291577 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2291577

Abstract:
We test the empirical validity of a claim that has been playing a central role in debates on corporate governance – the claim that interventions by activist shareholders, and in particular activist hedge funds, have an adverse effect on the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders. While this “myopic activists” claim has been regularly invoked and has had considerable influence, its supporters have thus far failed to back it up with evidence. This paper presents a comprehensive empirical investigation of this claim and finds that it is not supported by the data.

We study the universe of about 2,000 interventions by activist hedge funds during the period 1994-2007, examining a long time window of five years following the intervention. We find no evidence that interventions are followed by declines in operating performance in the long term; to the contrary, activist interventions are followed by improved operating performance during the five-year period following these interventions. These improvements in long-term performance, we find, are present also when focusing on the two subsets of activist interventions that are most resisted and criticized – first, interventions that lower or constrain long-term investments by enhancing leverage, beefing up shareholder payouts, or reducing investments and, second, adversarial interventions employing hostile tactics.

We also find no evidence that the initial positive stock price spike accompanying activist interventions fails to appreciate their long-term costs and therefore tends to be followed by negative abnormal returns in the long term; the data is consistent with the initial spike reflecting correctly the intervention’s long-term consequences. Similarly, we find no evidence for pump-and-dump patterns in which the exit of an activist is followed by abnormal long-term negative returns. Finally, we find no evidence for concerns that activist interventions during the years preceding the financial crisis rendered companies more vulnerable and that the targeted companies therefore were more adversely affected by the crisis.

Our findings that the considered claims and concerns are not supported by the data have significant implications for ongoing policy debates on corporate governance, corporate law, and capital markets regulation. Policymakers and institutional investors should not accept the validity of the frequent assertions that activist interventions are costly to firms and their long-term shareholders in the long term; they should reject the use of such claims as a basis for limiting the rights and involvement of shareholders.


Bogleheads • View topic - SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers , August 5, 2013

edit: added link to prior page.


regards,
Last edited by Barry Barnitz on Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33922
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Post by nisiprius » Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:55 pm

Barry, I was just on the site, trying to understand what sort of quality control SSRN exercises over what they publish... it's not too clear to me how it works. They talk about "the early distribution of research results by publishing Submitted abstracts and by soliciting abstracts of top quality research papers around the world...." Does this mean that the papers must have been accepted for publishing by a peer-reviewed journal, or what? Exactly what do they mean by "top quality research papers?"
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

stlutz
Posts: 3968
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:08 am

Re: SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Post by stlutz » Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:24 pm

http://www.ssrn.com/update/general/ssrn ... ml#user_hq

A paper must be part of the world-wide scholarly discourse covered by one or more of SSRN's subject area networks to be eligible for inclusion and public display in SSRN's eLibrary. Every submitted paper is reviewed by SSRN staff to ensure that the paper is a part of the scholarly discourse in its subject area. SSRN does not provide peer review for papers in the eLibrary.


SSRN is not really a gatekeeper;

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 2963
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Post by Barry Barnitz » Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:32 pm

Hi Nisi:

See SSRN FAQ

ABOUT SSRN: From The Desk of Michael C. Jensen, Chairman, 20th anniversary letter

SSRN's History and Structure

SSRN (the Social Science Research Network) was formally incorporated 17 years ago in October, 1994. It originated in 1992 as FEN (Financial Economics Network), the brainchild of Wayne Marr. Our vision was (and still is) to enable scholars to share and distribute their research worldwide, long before their papers work their way through the multi-year journal refereeing and publication process. We vowed to do so at the lowest cost possible for authors and readers.

Since 1992 over 179,000 authors have uploaded more than 381,000 papers and abstracts to SSRN's eLibrary. And our readers have downloaded over 50 million full text documents (currently running at more than 8.5 million downloads per year).

We founded SSRN as a corporate entity because we believed it to be the most efficient form. SSRN is a collaborative of over 1,000 scholars worldwide who contribute their services as Advisory Editors, Editors and Network Directors. SSRN does not take government grants or other subsidies, nor do we take capital from outside investors, eliminating a potential source of conflict with our authors and users. We are committed to doing our best to ensure SSRN never abandons its commitment to scholars and their readers, including ensuring that SSRN is not sold to a party that would abandon this commitment.

SSRN's OBJECTIVE

SSRN's objective is to provide worldwide distribution of research to authors and their readers and to facilitate communication among them at the lowest possible cost. In pursuit of this objective, we encourage authors to upload their papers to SSRN (without charge). And any paper an author uploads to SSRN is downloadable for free, worldwide. We allow publishers and other institutions to charge users for downloading papers they have uploaded to SSRN while encouraging them to charge fees that are as low as possible. Our rule is that the price for such papers on SSRN must be equal to or below the lowest price that such papers are available anywhere on the web to non-subscribers. The vast majority of papers in the SSRN eLibrary are downloadable at no charge. In addition, SSRN provides free subscriptions to all of our abstracting eJournals to users in developing countries on request.


SSRN Top Downloads Financial Economics Network
SSRN Top Downloads Social Insurance Research Network
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven

DetroitRed
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:16 pm

Re: SSRN: Top 10 (hits) papers

Post by DetroitRed » Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:20 pm

Thanks for putting this together, Barry.

Post Reply