Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We find reliable evidence that both book-to-market (B M) and dividend yield track time-series variation in expected real stock returns over the period 1926 91 (in which B M is stronger) and the subperiod 1941–1991 (in which dividend yield is stronger). A Bayesian bootstrap procedure implies that an investor with prior belief 0.5 that expected returns on the equal-weighted index are never negative comes away from the full-period B/M evidence with posterior probability 0.08 for the hypothesis (0.14 with the impact of the 1933 outlier tempered). Although this raises doubts about market efficiency, the post-1940 evidence is consistent with expected returns always being positive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kothari et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: