US

Stock Prices

Question A:

Unless they have inside information, very few investors, if any, can consistently make accurate predictions about whether the price of an individual stock will rise or fall on a given day.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question B:

Plausible expectations of future dividends, discounted using a plausible risk-adjusted interest rate, explain well the level of stock prices for recently listed internet businesses in 1999.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Experts are generally no better than the rest of us -- often worse.
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Strongly Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
There is short run predictability but consistently on a given day is a high standard.
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
I suspect 'very few' is an important qualifier.
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Provided "very few" includes the minority of hedge fund traders who clearly can.
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Despite attempts, there is no solid empirical evidence or convincing theoretical support for the contrary view.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Randomness is the best ex ante explanation of a given stock's movement on a given day.
-see background information here
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Goldin
Claudia Goldin
Harvard
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
If even a few could predict that well then there would be little volatility and these "geniuses" would be very rich.
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
We have at least 10,000 research papers establishing this one as a fact
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Answer assumes that no public information is unaccounted for, because stock market is closed.
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
This is the conclusion of the empirical evidence I have seen.
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Everyone should have to read Ken French's Presidential Address to the American Finance Association on the perils of active investing.
-see background information here
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Strongly Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Predictable anomalies are surely a small part of daily variance. Long term predictability seems greater (Campbell-Shiller).
-see background information here
Lazear
Edward Lazear
Stanford
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Markets may be far from perfect, but the literature supports that the current price is the best predictor of tomorrow's price.
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Hard one to answer - probably depends on interpretation of "very few" and "consistently".
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Tough question because of details. But yes. This is well studied and subject to small, low-yield, and transient anomalies.
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
The evidence supports this claim, though one can't infer that stock prices always equal reasonable forecasts of discounted future dividends.
Rouse
Cecilia Rouse
Princeton
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
The informational requirements are too high given the many factors and random shocks that can occur on any given day.
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
The evidence on this one seems overwhelming.
Shin
Hyun Song Shin
Princeton
Strongly Agree
10
Bio/Vote History
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Strongly Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
There may be rare moments when movements of specific stocks are predictable, but these are fleeting and will yield profit to only a few.
Zingales
Luigi Zingales
Chicago Booth
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
We were in a bubble. There were not enough future profits in the world to justify those prices.
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
The definition of plausibly is part of the issue---
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
This is not my area of expertise.
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Ex post events suggest otherwise.
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Strongly Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
You mean there was no bubble?
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Uncertain
9
Bio/Vote History
Expected cash flows were hard to estimate. See Pastor and Veronesi. An ex ante (1999) poll would be very interesting!
-see background information here
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Are we still arguing over whether the internet bubble was a bubble? I thought it was at the time and have never thought otherwise.
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Goldin
Claudia Goldin
Harvard
Disagree
2
Bio/Vote History
The Q is still oddly worded, but appears to ask whether the dot.com bubble was a bubble. I guess I think it was.
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
? We know that there was a bubble and most of them went out of business.
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
It is always easiest to make these judgments ex post, which of course, undermines their meaning.
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
Turns on the interpretation of "plausible." My Ely Lecture made the case that eBay's valuation satisfied a plausible discounted div model.
-see background information here
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
"Plausible" is a fuzzy term. Asset pricing theories concern averages, not events. If a 10-1 horse wins, does that mean the odds were wrong?
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Never could figure out how pets.com, webvan and various other dotcoms could have ever made money.
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Lazear
Edward Lazear
Stanford
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
In cases where ex post, something turns out to be a bubble, it is tough to say that ex ante expectations were plausible.
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Strongly Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Even at the time, it was clear that these firms would have to earn most of GDP to rationalize their stock prices.
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
This episode was a classic case of contagious overoptimism.
Rouse
Cecilia Rouse
Princeton
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
This is but one interpretation; a bubble would be another....
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Strongly Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
I haven't seen an analysis of this for dot.coms in aggregate, but many of their valuations were truly nutty.
Shin
Hyun Song Shin
Princeton
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Stokey
Nancy Stokey
University of Chicago
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Asset prices are extremely volatile, and "explaining" this fact as variations in the price of risk seems close to tautological.
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
The key is to define "plausible expectations". It is likely that widespread overconfidence contributed to the price rise.
Zingales
Luigi Zingales
Chicago Booth
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History