Discover the value of quant
Subscribe for cutting-edge quant strategies and insights.


Our research shows that equity risk premiums tend to be higher when risk-free returns are low, and vice versa. This dispels the hypothesis that higher risk-free returns imply higher total average stock returns.
Expected stock returns can be broken down into the risk-free return plus the equity risk premium. The risk-free component is typically assumed to be the return on short-term Treasury bills or longer-term Treasury bonds, depending on the investor’s investment horizon. Meanwhile, the equity risk premium can be interpreted as the reward that investors can expect to earn for bearing the risk of holding stocks. All else equal, a higher risk-free return should therefore imply higher total expected stock returns.
This notion has been contested in several research papers1 over the years. But the analysis has either been based on a relatively short sample period, or does not include the last two decades which had exceptionally low interest rates. In our research paper,2 we revisit the empirical relationship between stock returns and risk-free returns by looking at data from 1866 to 2021 for US markets, and from 1870 to 2021 for international markets.
In our analysis, we compared the total stock returns for the US market during different interest rate environments. If equities offer a fairly stable risk premium, then we would expect to observe a similar-sized risk premium for all risk-free return levels and increasing total returns with higher risk-free return levels. However, our results paint a different picture as the total returns were similar for all levels of risk-free returns as shown in Figure 1. This also reflected an inverse relationship between the equity risk premium and the risk-free return.

Source: Robeco Quantitative Research
To further examine the relationship, we regressed the monthly stock returns minus the risk-free returns on the prevailing risk-free return and earnings yield. First, we saw that the estimated coefficient for the risk-free return turned out to be strongly negative. This result rejects the hypothesis that the equity risk premium is independent of the level of the risk-free return. In fact, it is more supportive for the alternative hypothesis that total expected equity returns are similar during times of low and high risk-free returns. Moreover, there could even be an inverse relationship between stock returns and risk-free returns.
Second, we noted that the estimated coefficient for the earnings yield was significantly positive. Taken together, these regression results imply that the equity risk premium increases with the earnings yield but decreases with the risk-free return. This is in line with a similar finding in another study3 which concludes that the difference between stock yields and bond yields has predictive power for future stock returns.
Subscribe for cutting-edge quant strategies and insights.
We also looked into the implied equity risk premium estimates based on our regression analysis and calculated the corresponding total stock returns by adding back the prevailing risk-free returns. First, we scrutinized the results based on a regression analysis that had risk-free returns as the sole variable. As depicted in Figure 2, we found that the predicted total stock returns were more stable than the forecast equity risk premiums.

Source: Robeco Quantitative Research
Over our sample period, the predicted total stock returns typically oscillated between a range of 8% and 11%. The most notable deviation from this was during the late 1970s and early 1980s when interest rates were very high, which translated into lower expected returns. The expected total return was still positive, but after accounting for the high risk-free returns, the forecast equity risk premiums were extremely negative during this phase.
Second, we carried out a similar analysis with results based on a regression analysis that had risk-free returns and earnings yield as the variables. In this instance, the predicted total stock returns exhibited much stronger time variation, as Figure 3 illustrates.

Source: Robeco Quantitative Research
That said, the predicted stock returns remained more stable than the forecast equity risk premiums. Moreover, the former were not lower during periods with low risk-free returns, such as the 1940s and 2010s, than during intervals with high risk-free returns, such as the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, the predicted equity risk premiums were generally higher in phases with low risk-free returns.
To negate a data snooping bias, we also investigated the outcomes when using data from international markets. We found very similar results, as the estimated coefficient for the risk-free return was negative for all 16 countries included in the sample. These findings correspond with expected total stock returns being constant and the equity risk premium being inversely related to the risk-free return.
Again, this implies high equity risk premiums when risk-free returns are low and low equity risk premiums when risk-free returns are high, all else equal.
All in all, our findings lead us to strongly reject the hypothesis that a higher risk-free return implies higher total expected stock returns. Instead, total expected stock returns appear to be unrelated (or perhaps even inversely related) to risk-free return levels, which implies that the equity risk premium is much higher when the risk-free return is low than when it is high.
While our observations do not imply a profitable tactical asset allocation rule that could be applied in real time, we believe our findings challenge the conventional wisdom about expected stock returns. Therefore, our findings should be considered in strategic asset allocation decisions, particularly when the risk-free return is very high or very low compared to its historical average.
1Fama, E.F., and Schwert, G.W., November 1977, “Asset returns and inflation”, Journal of Financial Economics; Fama, E.F., and French, K.R., November 1989, “Business conditions and expected returns on stocks and bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics; Chen, N., June 1991, “Financial investment opportunities and the macroeconomy”, Journal of Finance; and Ang, A., and Bekaert, G., May 2007, “Stock return predictability: is it there?” The Review of Financial Studies.
2Blitz, D., February 2022, “Expected stock returns when interest rates are low”, working paper.
3Maio, P., July 2013, “The ‘Fed model’ and the predictability of stock returns”, Review of Finance.
本網站僅供《證券及期貨條例》(香港法例第571章)及其附屬法例所界定之專業投資者瀏覽及使用。 投資涉及風險。過往表現並不代表未來表現。本網站所載資料僅供參考之用,並不構成任何投資建議,亦非作出買賣任何證券或採納任何投資策略之要約或招攬。投資者不應僅憑本網站提供之資料作出投資決定,在作出任何投資決定前,應徵詢獨立意見(包括有關稅務影響之意見)。投資者應確保完全理解投資產品的相關風險,亦應考量自身投資目標及風險承受水平。投資乃閣下之個人決定。除非銷售投資產品的中介人已向閣下告知該投資產品適合閣下,並已解釋其符合閣下投資目標之原因,否則閣下不應投資。請參閱相關發售文件或其他法律文件,以獲取包括風險因素在內的進一步詳情。 本網站由荷寶投資管理香港有限公司發布,該公司受香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會(「證監會」)規管(中央編號:APU851)。本網站未經證監會審閱。 無法保證任何投資產品可實現其投資目標。概不就任何投資產品之表現或投資回報作任何聲明或承諾。投資的價值或會波動。本網站所載過往表現、推算或預測,均不應視作未來表現之保證或指標,且概不提供任何明示或暗示之保證。本網站內容建基於相信為可靠之來源,惟因應資料傳遞技術特性及須採用多項數據來源(包括第三方內容),故概不保證其準確性。所述觀點僅乃截至上述日期,或會隨市況變化而改變,可予更改而毋須另行通知。該等意見可能有別於其他荷寶投資專業人士之意見。因使用本材料或當中所載任何評論、意見或估算而引致之直接、間接或相應損失,荷寶概不承擔法律責任。荷寶並無責任更新本網站或任何網站內容。未經荷寶事先書面許可,不得複製、分發或刊發本網站任何材料。 除非另有說明,資料來源:荷寶。