Narasimhan Jegadeesh

Dean's Distinguished Chair of Finance Emory University, Goizueta Business School

  • Atlanta GA

Contact

Emory University, Goizueta Business School

View more experts managed by Emory University, Goizueta Business School

Social

Biography

Narasimhan Jegadeesh is the Dean's Distinguished Chair in Finance at the Goizueta Business School. He has also been on the faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of California at Los Angeles. He has published extensively in the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Financial Economics, the Review of Financial Studies and other leading academic finance journals. His research has been discussed in several publications including Businessweek, The Economist, Forbes, Kiplinger's Personal Investments, Money, New York Times, and Smart Money.

Education

Columbia University

PhD

Finance

1987

Indian Institute of Management

MBA

Postgraduate Diploma in Management

1980

Indian Institute of Technology

BTech

Mechanical Engineering

1978

Areas of Expertise

Market Analysis
Stock Market and Investments
Market Momentum

Publications

Closing auctions: Nasdaq versus NYSE

Journal of Financial Economics

2022

Closing auction volume steadily increased over the last decade, and it reached a peak of about 10% of the total trading volume in 2019. We examine the price impact and resiliency of closing auctions, and we compare closing auction liquidity in Nasdaq and the NYSE...

View more

What Do Fund Flows Reveal about Asset Pricing Models and Investor Sophistication? Get access Arrow

The Review of Financial Studies

2021

Recent evidence indicates that market model alphas are stronger predictors of mutual fund flows than alphas with other models. Some recent papers have interpreted this evidence to mean that CAPM is the best asset pricing model, but some others have interpreted it as evidence against investor sophistication. We evaluate the merits of these mutually exclusive interpretations...

View more

Empirical tests of asset pricing models with individual assets: Resolving the errors-in-variables bias in risk premium estimation

Journal of Financial Economics

2019

To attenuate an inherent errors-in-variables bias, portfolios are widely employed to test asset pricing models; but portfolios might mask relevant risk- or return-related features of individual stocks. We propose an instrumental variables approach that allows the use of individual stocks as test assets, yet delivers consistent estimates of ex post risk premiums...

View more

Show All +

Research Spotlight

3 min

Heads up CFOs: The capital asset pricing model still rules

Firms invest in various things: bonds, stocks or other assets—new stores, new premises or even other firms. And they do so to earn maximum value from available cash that would otherwise be idle. For example, for the last five years Walmart generated an annual cash flow of more than $25 billion from its operations. The retailer has the option to channel this cash into opening new stores, ultimately growing its business and profits. Alternatively, Walmart can pay the cash out to its shareholders in the form of dividends, or through share repurchases. So far, it’s been productive. However, this win-win scenario is contingent on successfully navigating a number of complexities. Primary among these is that to invest optimally, you first need to determine the correct hurdle rate for that investment. Hurdle rates are the minimum rates of return that firms seek on their investments. The hurdle rate is the appropriate compensation commensurate with the investments’ risk. Therefore, the higher the risk, the higher the hurdle rate needs to be. For instance, a hurdle rate of 10% means that for every $100 invested, you would expect to earn an average of $10 average per year. But it’s tricky. You have to calculate the right hurdle rate that would add the most value for your shareholders—the optimal rate of return for you and your business. Too high and there’s risk of missing out on a good investment. If your right hurdle rate is 10%, but you mistakenly opt for 15%, you’re likely to ignore any investment that is projected to earn you less than 15%, but more than 10% is likely to be missed. As a result, you’ll end up leaving money on the table. Too low a hurdle rate and you’re in danger of burning money. Again, supposing your hurdle rate should be 10%, but you set it at 5%, you’re likely to end up investing in things with a suboptimal return. In the end, you’re wasting your cash on low value investments when you could be paying it directly to your shareholders in dividends and giving them the chance to earn 10% return on their own. For the last 50 years, the financial world has built models to calculate hurdle rates and rates of return. But which one works best? Shedding critical new light on this is a recently published paper by Narasimhan Jegadeesh, Dean’s Distinguished Chair of Finance at Goizueta, entitled “Empirical tests of asset pricing models with individual assets.” Jegadeesh and his co-authors developed new statistical methods to differentiate among a raft of new models that have been developed in recent years and to compare their efficacy to that of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), a model introduced in the 1960s. What they found is that none of the newer models work any better than the CAPM in determining the appropriate hurdle rate or rate of return of an asset. That paper is attached and is required reading for CFOs and anyone interested in the Capital Asset Pricing Model. If you are looking to know more, or if you are a journalist interested in covering this important aspect of business and investing – then let our experts help. Narasimhan Jegadeesh is Dean’s Distinguished Chair of Finance at Goizueta. He is a renowned expert in this field and has been published extensively in the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Financial Economics, the Review of Financial Studies and other leading academic finance journals. His research has been discussed in several publications including Businessweek, The Economist, Forbes, Kiplinger's Personal Investments, Money, New York Times, and Smart Money.

Narasimhan Jegadeesh

1 min

Risk and returns for private equity and venture capital funds

The early success of some well-known private equity and venture capital funds has led to their rapid growth. According to research from Narasimhan Jegadeesh, the Dean’s Distinguished Chair in Finance, Roman Kraussl (U of Luxembourg), and Joshua M. Pollet (U of Illinois), investors should carefully evaluate the future risk and return potential of this asset class and avoid investing primarily because of past successes. Some private equity indices compiled by the industry suggest that these funds offer bigger returns than the public equity market, but prior academic studies offer mixed evidence on performance. Jegadeesh and his coauthors devised a new approach to determine the actual risk and returns by using market prices of funds that primarily invest in unlisted PE and VC funds listed on several European stock exchanges. This approach has a distinct advantage because it uses publicly available market prices rather than self-reported data, which were previously used in other academic studies. Their findings indicate that unlisted PE and VC funds as an asset class are unlikely to yield extraordinary returns as suggested by some self-reported data. They may even yield about the same return as the stock market but are illiquid. Source:

Narasimhan Jegadeesh

In the News

Wall Street’s Real Earnings Surprise

Barron’s  online

2017-09-15

Companies surpassing both revenue and earnings estimates tend to outperform the market over time by more than companies beating on earnings alone.

View More

Snapchat Will Be a Stock Market Dog

Fortune  online

2017-03-06

The negative outlook for Snap’s shares is notable not just because it’s a hot IPO, but also because Wall Street analysts are usually a pretty optimistic bunch.

View More

Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced

The New York Times  online

2015-08-27

There is much scholarly literature on momentum, starting in 1993 with a bombshell paper by Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman...

View More

Show All +