We measure "good" and "bad" variance premia that capture risk compensations for the realized variation in positive and negative market returns, respectively. The two variance premium components jointly predict excess returns over the next 1 and 2 years with statistically significant negative (positive) coefficients on the good (bad) component. The R 2 s reach about 10% for aggregate equity and portfolio returns and 20% for corporate bond returns. To explain the new empirical evidence, we develop an economic model which underscores the difference in investors' risk attitudes towards upside and downside uncertainty risks AbstractWe measure "good" and "bad" variance premia that capture risk compensations for the realized variation in positive and negative market returns, respectively. The two variance premium components jointly predict excess returns over the next 1 and 2 years with statistically significant negative (positive) coefficients on the good (bad) component. The R 2 s reach about 10% for aggregate equity and portfolio returns and about 20% for corporate bond returns. We show that an asset pricing model that features distinct time variation in positive and negative shocks to fundamentals can explain the good and bad variance premium evidence in the data.

No abstract

We measure "good" and "bad" variance premia that capture risk compensations for the realized variation in positive and negative market returns, respectively. The two variance premium components jointly predict excess returns over the next 1 and 2 years with statistically significant negative (positive) coefficients on the good (bad) component. The R 2 s reach about 10% for aggregate equity and portfolio returns and 20% for corporate bond returns. To explain the new empirical evidence, we develop an economic model which underscores the difference in investors' risk attitudes towards upside and downside uncertainty risks AbstractWe measure "good" and "bad" variance premia that capture risk compensations for the realized variation in positive and negative market returns, respectively. The two variance premium components jointly predict excess returns over the next 1 and 2 years with statistically significant negative (positive) coefficients on the good (bad) component. The R 2 s reach about 10% for aggregate equity and portfolio returns and about 20% for corporate bond returns. We show that an asset pricing model that features distinct time variation in positive and negative shocks to fundamentals can explain the good and bad variance premium evidence in the data.

Yaron, and seminar participants at the Wharton School, at the TransAtlantic Doctoral Conference, at the Western Finance Association Meetings, at the SAFE Asset Pricing Workshop, and Federal Reserve Board for helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

Yaron, and seminar participants at the Wharton School, at the TransAtlantic Doctoral Conference, at the Western Finance Association Meetings, at the SAFE Asset Pricing Workshop, and Federal Reserve Board for helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.