Global Evidence on the Equity Risk Premium
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol 15, No 4, pages 27–34
15 Pages Posted: 11 Aug 2003 Last revised: 20 Mar 2016
There are 2 versions of this paper
Global Evidence on the Equity Risk Premium
Global Evidence on the Equity Risk Premium
Date Written: August 1, 2003
Abstract
Most long-run empirical research on the historical risk premium has focused on the experience of the United States. However, the United States has been a remarkably successful economy, making it unlikely that the US risk premium is representative. Until recently, evidence on the risk premium in most other countries has typically been over only relatively brief intervals during the latter part of the twentieth century. We extend the evidence by examining equity, bond, and bill returns in 16 different countries over the 103-year period from 1900 to 2002. We show that the equity risk premium has typically been lower than most previous research has indicated. Finally, we argue that even this lower figure for the historical risk premium is still an overestimate of the likely future risk premium.
Keywords: Equity risk premium, Long-term returns, Financial history, Survivorship, Required rate of return
JEL Classification: F30, G10, G12, G15, G31, N20
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Paper statistics
Recommended Papers
-
A Re-Examination of the Historical Equity Risk Premium in Australia
By Tim Brailsford, John C. Handley, ...
-
Relationship between Franking Credits and the Market Risk Premium: A Reply
By Stephen Gray and Jason Hall
-
The Market Value of UK Dividends from Shares with Differing Entitlements
By Seth Armitage, Lynn Hodgkinson, ...
-
Relation between Franking Credits and the Market Risk Premium: A Comment
By Giang Truong and Graham Partington
-
Is Index Performance Achievable? An Analysis of Australian Equity Index Funds
By Alex Frino and David R. Gallagher
-
Relationship between Franking Credits and the Market Risk Premium: A Comment
By Martin Lally