Skip to main content

Forecasting Stock Returns—Historical Mean Vs. Dividend Yield: Rolling Regressions and Time-Variation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter considers whether the log dividend yield provides forecast power for stock returns. Using a five-year rolling window, we compare forecasts from the dividend yield model to those from the historical mean model across forecast magnitude, sign and investment metrics. Results show that in each case the dividend yield model provides superior forecasts. While the difference between, for example, RMSE and the success ratio is small, results support improved market timing and better investment performance. In explaining these results, we also consider three-year and seven-year rolling forecasts as well as recursive forecasts and note that these do not perform as well. Thus, it is the nature of time-variation within the forecast parameter that is important. Overall, these results support stock returns forecasting but stress the importance of time-variation in the forecast model to ensure forecast power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In a recent paper, Black et al. (2014) noted that forecast results differ between recursive and different sized window rolling approaches.

  2. 2.

    The rolling in-sample periods thus contain k observations, while the out-of-sample will consist of a series from k + 1 to the end of the sample, T. We refer below to this out-of-sample period as containing τ observations.

  3. 3.

    The series used is the total market price index and the dividend yield index based on the last dividend announced divided by the latest price.

  4. 4.

    Campbell and Thompson (2008) and Guidolin et al. (2013) also use a five-year rolling window.

  5. 5.

    One issue that can arise within predictive regressions is the potential for persistence and endogeneity in any of the regressors to affect the estimates, often referred to as the Stambaugh (1999) bias. A recent set of papers has suggested a feasible quasi-GLS (FQGLS) t-test that is robust to both, as well as heteroscedasticity (Westerlund and Narayan 2012, 2015). A related procedure is also presented in Maio (2016). As the focus in this paper is on the forecasting ability of the model and not the point estimates and their significance, we refer the reader to this work but do not consider it further here.

  6. 6.

    In a related but separate point, Henkel et al. (2011) argue that predictability rises during recessionary periods when risk premiums are high and prices low. Thus, providing a similar observation to the one made here.

  7. 7.

    Obviously, a dividend growth predictability model would form the second part of the error correction system.

References

  • Ang, A., and G. Bekaert. 2007. Stock return predictability: Is it there? Review of Financial Studies 20: 651–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A.J., O. Klinkowska, D.G. McMillan, and F.J. McMillan. 2014. Predicting stock returns: Do commodities prices help? Journal of Forecasting 33: 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.Y., and R.J. Shiller. 1988. The dividend-price ratio and expectations of future dividends and discount factors. Review of Financial Studies 1: 195–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.Y., and S.B. Thompson. 2008. Predicting excess stock returns out of sample: Can anything beat the historical average? Review of Financial Studies 21: 1509–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y.-W., M.D. Chin, and A.G. Pascual. 2005. Empirical exchange rate models of the nineties: Are they fit to survive? Journal of International Money and Finance 24: 1150–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T.E., and M.W. McCracken. 2001. Tests of equal forecast accuracy and encompassing for nested models. Journal of Econometrics 105: 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, M.P., and D.I. Harvey. 2009. Forecast combination and encompassing. In: Palgrave Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 2, Applied Econometrics (169–198). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, J. 2008. The dog that did not bark: A defense of return predictability. Review of Financial Studies 21: 1533–1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., and K.R. French. 1988. Dividend yields and expected stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 22: 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fair, R.C., and R.J. Shiller. 1989. The informational content of ex ante forecasts. Review of Economics and Statistics 71: 325–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, A., and I. Welch. 2003. Predicting the equity premium with dividend ratios. Management Science 49: 639–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidolin, M., D.G. McMillan, and M.E. Wohar. 2013. Time-Varying stock return predictability: Evidence from US sectors. Finance Research Letters 10: 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, S.J., J.S. Martin, and F. Nardari. 2011. Time-varying short-horizon predictability. Journal of Financial Economics 99: 560–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellard, N.M., J.C. Nankervis, and F.I. Papadimitriou. 2010. Predicting the equity premium with dividend ratios: Reconciling the evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance 17: 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lettau, M., and S. Van Nieuwerburgh. 2008. Reconciling the return predictability evidence. Review of Financial Studies 21: 1607–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio, P. 2016. Cross-sectional return dispersion and the equity premium. Journal of Financial Markets 29: 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, M.W. 2007. Asymptotics for out-of-sample Granger causality. Journal of Econometrics 140: 719–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, D.G. 2014. Modelling Time-Variation in the Stock Return-Dividend Yield Predictive Equation. Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments 23: 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, D.G., and M.E. Wohar. 2013. A panel analysis of the stock return dividend yield relation: Predicting returns and dividend growth. Manchester School 81: 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosa, I., and K. Burns. 2012. Can exchange rate models outperform the random walk? Magnitude, direction and profitability as criteria. International Economics 65: 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C.R., and M.J. Kim. 1993. Predictable stock returns: The role of small sample bias. Journal of Finance 48: 641–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. 2010. When does the dividend-price ratio predict stock returns? Journal of Empirical Finance 17: 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paye, B., and A. Timmermann. 2006. Instability of return prediction models. Journal of Empirical Finance 13: 274–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran, M.H., and A. Timmermann. 1992. A simple nonparametric test of predictive performance. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10: 461–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stambaugh, R. 1999. Predictive Regressions. Journal of Financial Economics 54: 375–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, A. 2008. Elusive return predictability. International Journal of Forecasting 24: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, I., and A. Goyal. 2008. A comprehensive look at the empirical performance of equity premium prediction. Review of Financial Studies 21: 1455–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, J., and P. Narayan. 2012. Does the choice of estimator matter when forecasting stock returns. Journal of Banking & Finance 36: 2632–2640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, J., and P. Narayan. 2015. Testing for predictability in conditionally heteroskedastic stock returns. Journal of Financial Econometrics 13: 342–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David G. McMillan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McMillan, D.G. (2018). Forecasting Stock Returns—Historical Mean Vs. Dividend Yield: Rolling Regressions and Time-Variation. In: Predicting Stock Returns. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69008-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69008-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69007-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69008-7

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics