John Cochrane image

John Cochrane

24 Votes

Hoover Institution Stanford

  • Stanford, CA

About

  • Rose-Marie and Jack Anderson Senior Fellow
  • President, American Finance Association (2009-2010)
  • TIAA-CREF Institute Paul A. Samuelson Award for Asset Pricing (2001)

Voting History

Finance

Tesla

Tesla shareholders are likely to benefit substantially from the decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery to void Elon Musk's $56 billion remuneration package.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Disagree
6
Comment: Tesla's stratospheric stock value depends on the belief that Musk will deliver magic, not selling cars. The package was not cash today, but options granted before stock rose, reward for performance. Denying ex ante maybe, but ex post welching on deals is not good.
On 10 January 2024, the SEC approved spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products:
https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023\

The SEC's approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products makes investors overall measurably better off.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
7
Uncertain
7
Comment: It's not the SEC's job to stop people from making what it thinks are bad investments. I don't think investors as a whole are better off holding bitcoin, but I've been wrong before and so has the SEC. "Investors better off" is not the question for regulation!
-see background information here
The Biden Administration's recommendation to lower the real discount rate used in the cost and benefit analysis of federal regulations to 2 percent (from the current levels of 3 or 7 percent) will substantially improve regulatory analysis.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Uncertain
6
Comment: Discount rate attracts attention: promises 50 years ahead justify big costs. The calculation of benefits is worse. "Dignity" and "indigenous culture" (p. 44). Income redistribution (p. 65.) Good: p. 27 no price controls, etc. 91 pages, paperwork mountain and lawsuit bonanza.
-see background information here
Finance

Modern Portfolio Theory

Question A: Harry Markowitz, the Nobel Prize-winning pioneer of modern portfolio theory, passed away earlier this year:
https://afajof.org/news/in-memoriam-harry-markowitz-past-president-of-the-american-finance-association-1927-2023/

Application of the principles of modern portfolio theory allows investors in practice to achieve substantial improvements in the risk-expected return trade-off relative to naive strategies such as equal-weighting that do not take account of return covariances.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
8
Agree
8
Comment: Actual mean-variance calculations don't work well in practice. But portfolio theory tells us all to diversify, and what that means exactly. Investors today, via funds, hold portfolios that are much better diversified than the individual stocks they held when Markowitz wrote.
Question B: Widespread adoption of modern portfolio theory by investors has substantially improved the efficiency of capital allocation in financial markets.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
5
Agree
7
Comment: Investors haven't adopted portfolio theory. (Some hedge funds do, but not most institutions and individuals). Plus, it was never about investment or market efficiency.
Question A: The Federal Reserve has begun quantitative tightening (QT) to reduce the size of its balance sheet. Fed holdings of Treasury securities have declined by $800 billion relative to the March 2020 peak. The Fed currently holds $4.9 trillion of Treasury securities, significantly larger than the $2.5 trillion holdings prior to the Covid pandemic.

A reduction in Fed holdings of Treasury securities measurably increases the interest rate on long-term U.S. Treasury bonds.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
3
Agree
6
Comment: Perhaps for a day or two. But when the Fed buys bonds it gives interest bearing reserves in return. Do people care about bonds vs. a big money market fund that holds bonds (the Fed)? Maybe, but static demand curves for different maturities makes little sense.
Question B: A reduction in Fed holdings of Treasury securities measurably increases volatility in the Treasury market.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
7
Uncertain
6
Comment: How? Even a static demand for maturities, so more "supply" lowers prices, doesn't naturally generate prices changing over time more quickly. Perhaps deep in the microstructure it's harder to speculate, but then trading profits should rise and more speculators/capital enters.
Question A: September 2023 was the 25th anniversary of the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). In response to LTCM's troubles, the Federal Reserve orchestrated a multi-billion dollar rescue package by a consortium of banks and it cut the Federal funds rate target by 75 basis points within six weeks.

The hedge fund sector's contribution to systemic risk is substantially lower today than at the time of LTCM.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
5
Uncertain
6
Comment: The question presumes LTCM was a "systemic risk," not clear. "Systemic risk" means a system wide run on short term debt, not that someone might lose some money. Only if HF have a lot of short financing, and failures could infect others, would it be such a risk. Not clear.
Question B: Financial market participants' expectation that the Fed will aggressively ease monetary policy in response to financial market dislocations is a substantial source of financial instability.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
6
Uncertain
6
Comment: The "Fed put" encourages risk taking, short term debt financing, and not keeping cash around to buy on dips for sure. But lower fed funds rate is not that big a deal. Fed's habit of bailing out, now extended to direct buys (corp bonds) is more harmful to this moral hazard.
Question A: SEC Announcement: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-155

The benefits of the new SEC rules on private funds - which require private funds to provide transparency to their investors regarding the fees and expenses and other terms of their relationship with private fund advisers and the performance of such private funds - substantially exceed their costs.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
8
Disagree
6
Comment: These are bargains between sophisticated people. "Market failure" happens when a market disappears. This one is booming. Caveat emptor. Also will quash competition by adding vague regulations. Funds need lobbyists and lawyers to function. See Hester Pierce's blistering comment.
-see background information here
Question B: The new SEC rules will have a substantially negative impact on the industry by stifling capital formation and reducing competition.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
5
Disagree
6
Comment: Negative impact on industry, yes. Will turn it in to a few large more monopolistic firms that are good with regulators. Capital formation, no. This is expensive fingers on scales of bilateral negotiations of large institutions, won't affect stock prices or flow of investment.
Question C: It is appropriate policy for the SEC to impose such rules on private funds even though the investors (limited partners) are sophisticated entities.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Uncertain
7
Comment: Regulalors always underestimate heterogeneity. These are sophisticated investors. Smaller investors do cost more.
Question A: New Money Market Fund (MMF) Rules: The SEC adopted amendments to the MMF rules, including a new mandatory liquidity fee for institutional prime and tax-exempt funds. The liquidity fee would trigger when daily net redemptions exceed five percent and when the costs associated with such redemptions are more than de minimus. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-129

The new liquidity fee will substantially reduce the likelihood of runs on MMFs.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
6
Disagree
6
Comment: I'd go with "reduce" but not "substantially." We'll see what goes wrong. The rule has too much discretion. Management will never want to put in fees or gates. Has to be totally automatic.
Question B: The new liquidity fee will cause a substantial shift of assets under management from institutional prime and tax-exempt funds to government MMFs (which are exempt from the fees).
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
8
Disagree
7
Comment: Historically, people forget that banks can fail and chase higher interest rates. They will do that again. In addition, government has shown it will always bail out MMMF in times of trouble.
Question A: The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on working and shopping habits has not been fully priced into current private valuations of downtown commercial properties in major cities.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Uncertain
6
Comment: Most commercial real estate problems are not due to pandemic per se, but subsequent policies. Pandemic didn't cause crime. "Not priced in" is weird. Prices are low, and few buying. The effects on rents and debt are rolling in. Prices that ignore information are not central.
Question B: A continued fall in commercial real estate valuations would trigger another round of banking panic.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
6
Uncertain
6
Comment: First "price" now "valuation." Different items. Questions fixation on prices is strange. No rents, empty buildings, laws forbidding conversion, defaults are a big problem. "Valuation" less so. You go bankrupt when you run out of cash.
Finance

ESG Factors

Question A: Regulation that allows state pension funds to consider environmental, social, and governance factors in investment decisions only if these factors are material for risk and expected return would make retirees measurably worse off.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
5
Disagree
5
Comment: Is this worded right? Logically, using something only if it is material to risk and return has to make people better off. Is the restriction the "only?" Is this relative to full use of ESG? Is it relative to can't use ESG at all?
Question B: Regulation that prevents state pension funds from considering environmental, social, and governance factors in investment decisions even if these factors are material for risk and expected return would make retirees measurably worse off.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Agree
7
Comment: Again, the logic puzzles me. Now you can use anything that is material for returns. If ESG really were demonstrably material, you'd be in trouble for not using it. Is anyone proposing banning ESG even if it is material? Sounds looney.
Question A: Since maturity transformation is an inherent feature of commercial banks' business model, some duration mismatch between assets and liabilities is unavoidable.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Did Not Answer
Agree
8
Question B: For the purposes of capital regulation, banks should be required to mark their holdings of Treasury and Agency securities to market at all times (even though their loans are not marked to market).
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Did Not Answer
Uncertain
7
Finance

Discount Rates

Question A: Despite the empirical failures of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) in explaining expected stock returns, a shareholder-value maximizing publicly-traded firm should still use the CAPM to calculate the cost of equity in capital budgeting.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
8
Uncertain
7
Comment: For most projects, comparable are better than CAPM. To price a burger, look at the restaurant next door or calculate cost of raising a cow. Beyond CAPM failures, we don't know betas or expected returns.
Question B: The equity risk premium that U.S. publicly traded firms should use in cost of equity calculations in April 2023 is above 6%.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Disagree
7
Comment: Most guesses of the equity premium (stocks over bonds) are lower than 6% these days, hovering more in the 3% area. The postwar period was pretty lucky, and growth has slowed. Still, stocks are so volatile that the standard error will always be high.
Finance

Banking Crisis

Question A: Financial regulators in the US and Europe lack the tools and authority to deter runs on banks by uninsured depositors.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Disagree
7
Comment: They just showed they have a bazooka: blanket guarantee. They have many other tools to stop runs should they choose to use them. But we shouldn't be here. Failing to see interest rate risk and run prone deposits is a huge failure of the regulatory architecture.
Question B: Not guaranteeing uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank in full would have created substantial damage to the US economy.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Uncertain
7
Comment: The main damage case is difficulties of SVB's depositors accessing cash. Other tools exist. The Fed could have lent against uninsured deposits. Beyond that we're speculating about "contagion." Once a run has happened, though, guarantees stop it. Then, let's address moral hazard?
Question C: Fully guaranteeing uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank substantially increases banks’ incentives to engage in excessive risk-taking.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
6
Agree
7
Comment: The idea that depositors "monitor," or that monitoring via a threat to run is a good idea, does not seem very good. Yes, uninsured deposits are now effectively guaranteed. The architecture is broken. Time for narrow deposit taking and equity+long debt financed banking.
-see background information here
Question A: By issuing inflation-indexed bonds, and thereby providing a long-term real safe asset for pension funds and retirement savers, governments can make a substantial contribution to social welfare.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
7
Agree
7
Comment: Inflation indexed bonds are an important security. But it is not necessary for governments to "provide" securities. Those bonds are repaid by taxes, so one pocket to another. The reluctance of the private sector, with real revenues, to issue index linked bonds is a puzzle.
Question B: Issuance of inflation-indexed bonds substantially helps government commit to a responsible fiscal and monetary policy.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
7
Uncertain
6
Comment: Index bonds are like debt, repay or default. Nominal bonds are like equity, can inflate away. Both are useful! Indexed/foreign debt offers precommitment, but painful default in bad times. Debt/equity, index/nominal, ex ante/ex post, bailout/moral hazard always tough questions!
Finance

Taxing Stock Buybacks

Question A: Large-scale stock buybacks by public corporations provide short-term rewards for shareholders and senior executives at the expense of potentially higher-return corporate investments.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Disagree
8
Comment: There is little sillier than the current war on buybacks. A company that has no good ideas should return money to shareholders, to reinvest in companies that do. Allowing buybacks was a reform against big inefficient conglomorates & corporate waste! Buyback tax protects them.
-see background information here

-see background information here

-see background information here

Question B: The proposed higher tax on corporate stock buybacks (an increase from 1% to 4%) would generate substantial public revenues.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Disagree
7
Comment: When you tax something, people adjust to avoid paying the tax. I expect a lot less buybacks, and consequently little revenue. Also, a mild retardant to economic growth. Buybacks are more efficient than dividends or other ways of giving money to shareholders.
Question C: The proposed higher tax on corporate stock buybacks would generate a substantial increase in corporate investment.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
9
Disagree
8
Comment: Many buybacks were undertaken to lever up. That's not great, but has little to do with investment. Companies with poor ideas will just directly buy assets of other companies, rather than give it to investors to do that. So we get the same amount of investment, just directed badly
Finance

Debt Ceiling

Question A: Missing payments on the US Treasury security obligations for several weeks would pose a substantial risk of a global financial crisis.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
5
Agree
6
Comment: Delaying payments for weeks would cause problems, but not obviously a huge crisis. Regulators would quickly allow treasurys as collateral anywey. Not good, not known, big uncertainty, but could be Y2K. That Treasury cannot issue more debt to offer bailouts might be bigger.
Question B: The requirement to periodically increase the debt ceiling measurably reduces the long-run size of the debt.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
6
Disagree
6
Comment: It's popular to deny this, but in my view it has some effect. The regular budget process is completely broken. This is one deadline that forces some spending/tax compromises. Not as much as we might like, but would be worse without this last overall budget mechanism.
Question A: The SEC’s proposed new rule for stock orders from individual investors is likely to be effective in giving those investors better prices on their trades on average.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Uncertain
5
Comment: We can't all have better prices. Who loses? Execution is a tiny issue relative to long term rates of return. Actual knowledge of how SEC rules change equilibrium trading is very thin.
Question B: The new rule would improve the overall operation of the stock market.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
7
Disagree
5
Comment: One thing we know as "experts" is how much other "experts" really don't know. Just how SEC rules improve or diminish market function is mostly made up. Many cases we do know SEC rules make things worse.
Question A: Although the reported volatility of asset values in private markets (private equity, buyouts, and venture capital) is lower than that of comparable assets in public markets, their true volatility is broadly similar or greater.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Agree
8
Agree
8
Comment: Privately held assets (and real estate) are not marked to market. Market valuations change quickly. To some extent that's the point: "volatility laundering" or "beta laundering" allows investors to ignore valuation changes, some of which mean revert.
-see background information here

-see background information here

Question B: Since the global financial crisis, the realized returns on private equities have measurably exceeded the returns on public equities.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
8
Disagree
5
Comment: If privately held hide volatility by not marking to market, it's hard to know what performance is, isn't it? After 14 years we have some data, others will review better. But we also need to control for risk characteristics, which, per first question, is hard.
Finance

Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Question A: The collapse of a major crypto intermediary will have little impact on the wider economy and the stability of the traditional financial system.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Agree
8
Agree
7
Comment: Collapse of THIS intermediary will have little systemic effect because large banks and other intermediaries were smart enough to stay out, and no "contagion" of trust in real finance. No overall wealth lost either. For each dollar one loses on crypto, another gains.
Question B: The collapse of a major crypto intermediary suggests the need for the crypto asset class to be more tightly regulated.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Uncertain
8
Agree
8
Comment: Regulation is not "more" or "less," it is smart or dumb, effective or ineffective. FTX was in Bahamas precisely to avoid regulation. No systemically important US institution is affected. US regulation worked. Yes, fraud. But caveat emptor. People have to be free to lose money.
Finance

Passive Investing

The amount of passively invested funds has reached levels at which it has a measurable detrimental effect on market efficiency.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Disagree
7
Comment: Index funds largely expand investing to a population that didn't hold stocks. Hedge funds have expanded. Not much evidence that there is less overall informed money, or that markets have become less efficient over time.
Question A: Research on the nature and impact of bank runs has made it possible to limit substantially the wider economic damage from financial crises.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Agree
7
Agree
7
Comment: I agree, though not for the usual reason. Research shows just what it takes to cause runs, and opens the door to the effective solution rather than current patches: Equity financed banking and narrow deposit taking.
Question B: Reforms of financial regulation since 2008 (and macroprudential policies in some countries) will not substantially reduce the probability of financial crises.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Agree
8
Uncertain
7
Comment: The current wave of reform is one more larger patch on the same leaky boat. Guarantee more creditors, ever larger bailouts, promise that this time regulators will see risks ahead of time. It failed again in 2020.
Finance

Currency Depreciation

Question A: The costs and risks associated with a sharp fall in the value of sterling outweigh any macroeconomic benefits for the UK of export stimulus due to a weaker currency.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Disagree
8
Uncertain
6
Comment: Both costs and benefits of short-term currency movements are over rated. And what to do about it? Absent a peg with ironclad fiscal commitment, propping up or devaluing the currency is not a wise policy.
Question B: Concerns about government finances and debt sustainability can undermine the reserve currency status of a major currency.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Agree
8
Agree
7
Comment: Concern about debt sustainability can certainly drive currency lower and inflation higher. "Reserve currency" status is over-rated. EU governments, and Switzerland too can borrow at similar rates and quantities to US.
Finance

Executive Pay

Question A: The typical chief executive officer of a publicly traded corporation in the U.S. is paid more than his or her marginal contribution to the firm's value.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Uncertain
7
Comment: Executives get paid a lot more than you and me. But companies are huge, and pretty competitive market. Much pay stocks anyway. Think of how much a bad CEO can ruin a company!
Question B: Mandating that U.S. publicly listed corporations must allow shareholders to cast a non-binding vote on executive compensation was a good idea.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
7
Uncertain
7
Comment: "Mandating." By who? If good, why does it need law/regulation? Why don't they do it now? Representative democracy is good, not every decision should be voted by shareholders. Shareholder voting is very distorted now, and political agendas creeping in.
Finance

Stakeholder Capitalism

Question A: Having companies run to maximize shareholder value creates significant negative externalities for workers and communities.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
10
Disagree
8
Comment: Question misuses "externality." Voluntary market transactions are not externalities. Having? Absence of government coercion is not "having."
Question B: Appropriately managed corporations could create significantly greater value than they currently do for a range of stakeholders – including workers, suppliers, customers and community members – with negligible impacts on shareholder value.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
10
Disagree
8
Comment: Horrible question. "Appropriately managed" can increase value for all. But by who? Question implies government. Sentences with subjects pls!
Question C: Effective mechanisms for boards of directors to ensure that CEOs act in ways that balance the interests of all stakeholders would be straightforward to introduce.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
10
Disagree
8
Comment: Passive agian. By who? By boards or by regulators? Interests are traded, not balanced. A gains, B loses. Owners pillaged, golden goose dies
Finance

Climate Reporting Mandate

Question A: A mandate for public companies to provide climate-related disclosures (such as their greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint) would provide financially material information that enables investors to make better decisions.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
10
Agree
7
Comment: Especially scope 3 -- carbon emissions by up and downstream links, triple-counting, are entirely made up numbers.
Question B: A mandate for public companies to provide climate-related disclosures would provide material information that enables investors to make better decisions with regards to non-financial objectives (such as aiding portfolio choice based on ESG principles).
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
5
Agree
7
Comment: The question is squishy. It will help only if investors care about the numbers that the regulation demands. My low rating reflects a view that the numbers will be largely meaningless. Except for forecasting regulatory displeasure, which does matter financially.
Question C: A mandate for public companies to provide climate-related disclosures would induce them to reduce their climate impact substantially.
Vote Confidence Median Survey Vote Median Survey Confidence
Strongly Disagree
8
Uncertain
6
Comment: It will induce them to do policies demanded by regulators. So far, many of these have negligible or negative impacts on actually fixing the climate.