In theory, stocks should provide a greater return than safe investments like Treasury bonds. The difference is called the equity risk premium: it is the excess return that you can expect from the overall market above a riskfree return. There is vigorous debate among experts about the method employed to calculate the equity premium and, of course, the resulting answer. In this article, we take a look at these methods  particularly the popular supplyside model  and the debates surrounding equity premium estimates.
Why Does It Matter?
The equity premium helps to set portfolio return expectations and determine asset allocation policy. A higher premium, for instance, implies that you would invest a greater share of your portfolio into stocks. Also, the capital asset pricing relates a stock's expected return to the equity premium: a stock that is riskier than the market  as measured by its beta  should offer excess return above the equity premium.
Greater Expectations
Compared to bonds, we expect extra return from stocks due to the following risks:
 Dividends can fluctuate, unlike predictable bond coupon payments.
 When it comes to corporate earnings, bond holders have a prior claim while common stock holders have a residual claim.
 Stock returns tend to be more volatile (although this is less true the longer the holding period).
And history validates theory. If you are willing to consider holding periods of at least 10 or 15 years, U.S. stocks have outperformed treasuries over any such interval in the last 200 years.
But history is one thing, and what we really want to know is tomorrow's equity premium. Specifically, how much extra above a safe investment should we expect for the stock market going forward? Academic studies tend to arrive at lower equity risk premium estimations  in the neighborhood of 23%, or even lower! Later in this article, we'll explain why this is always the conclusion of an academic study, whereas money managers often point to recent history and arrive at higher estimations of premiums.
Getting at the Premium
Here are the four ways to estimate the future equity risk premium:
What a range of outcomes! Opinion surveys naturally produce optimistic estimates, as do extrapolations of recent market returns. But extrapolation is a dangerous business: first, it depends on the time horizon selected, and second, we cannot know that history will repeat itself. Professor William Goetzmann of Yale has cautioned, "History, after all, is a series of accidents; the existence of the time series since 1926 might itself be an accident." For example, one widely accepted historical accident concerns the abnormally low longterm returns to bondholders that started right after World War II (and subsequently low bond returns increased the observed equity premium); bond returns were low in part because bond buyers in the 1940s and 1950s  misunderstanding government monetary policy  clearly did not anticipate inflation.
Building a Supply Side Model
Let's review the most popular approach, which is to build a supplyside model. There are three steps:
 Estimate the expected total return on stocks.
 Estimate the expected riskfree return (bond).
 Find the difference: expected return on stocks minus riskfree return equals the equity risk premium.
We'll keep it simple and sidestep a few technical issues. Specifically, we are looking at expected returns that are longterm, real, compound and pretax. By longterm, we mean something like 10 years, as short horizons raise questions of market timing. (That is, it is understood that markets will be over or undervalued in the short run.)
By 'real', we mean net of inflation. Even if we estimated the stock and bond returns in nominal terms, inflation would fall out of the subtraction anyhow. And by 'compound', we mean to ignore the ancient question of whether forecasted returns ought to be calculated as arithmetic or geometric (timeweighed) averages.
Finally, although it is convenient to refer to pretax returns as do virtually all academic studies, individual investors should care about aftertax returns. Taxes make a difference. Let's say the riskfree rate is 3% and the expected equity premium is 4%; we therefore expect equity returns of 7%. Say we earn the riskfree rate entirely in bond coupons taxed at ordinary income tax rates of 35%, whereas equities may be deferred entirely into a capital gains rate of 15% (i.e., no dividends). The aftertax picture in this case makes equities look even better.
Step One: Estimate the Expected Total Return on Stocks
DividendBased Approach The two leading supplyside approaches start with either dividends or earnings. The dividendbased approach says that returns are a function of dividends and their future growth. Consider an example with a single stock that today is priced at $100, pays a constant 3% dividend yield (dividend per share divided by stock price), but for which we also expect the dividend  in dollar terms  to grow at 5% per year. In this example, you can see that if we grow the dividend at 5% per year and insist on a constant dividend yield, the stock price must go up 5% per year too. The key assumption is that the stock price is fixed as multiple of the dividend. If you like to think in terms of P/E ratios, it is the equivalent to assuming that 5% earnings growth and a fixed P/E multiple must push the stock price up 5% per year. At the end of five years, our 3% dividend yield naturally gives us a 3% return ($19.14 if the dividends are reinvested). And the growth in dividends has pushed the stock price to $127.63, which gives us an additional 5% return. Together, we get a total return of 8%. That's the idea behind the dividendbased approach: the dividend yield (%) plus the expected growth in dividends (%) equals the expected total return (%). In formulaic terms, it is just a reworking of the Gordon Growth Model, which says that the fair price of a stock (P) is a function of the dividend per share (D), growth in the dividend (g) and the required or expected rate of return (k): EarningsBased Approach Here is the math that gets you the earningsbased approach: Whereas the dividendbased approach explicitly adds a growth factor, growth is implicit to the earnings model. It assumes the P/E multiple already impounds future growth. For example, if a company has a 4% earnings yield but doesn't pay dividends, then the model assumes the earnings are profitably reinvested at 4%. Even experts disagree here. Some "rev up" the earnings model on the idea that, at higher P/E multiples, companies can use highpriced equity to make progressively more profitable investments. Arnott and Bernstein  authors of perhaps the definitive study  prefer the dividend approach precisely for the opposite reason. They show that, as companies grow, the retained earnings they often opt to reinvest result in only subpar returns  in other words, the retained earnings should have instead been distributed as dividends. 
Handle with Care
Let's remember that the equity premium refers to a longterm estimate for the entire market of publiclytraded stocks. Lately several studies have cautioned that we should expect a fairly conservative premium in the future.
There are two reasons why academic studies, regardless of when they are conducted, are certain to produce low equity risk premiums.
The first is that they make an assumption that the market is correctly valued. In both the dividendbased approach and earningsbased approach, the dividend yield and earnings yield have reciprocal valuation multiples:
Both models assume that the valuation multiples  the pricetodividend and P/E ratio  are correct in the present and will not change going forward. This is understandable, for what else can these models do? It is notoriously difficult to predict an expansion or contraction of the market's valuation multiple. The earnings model might forecast 4% based on a P/E ratio of 25. And earnings may grow at 4%, but if the P/E multiple expands to, say, 30 in the next year, then the total market return will be 25%, where multiple expansion alone contributes 20%! (30/25 1 = +20%)
The second reason low equity premiums tend to characterize academic estimates is that the total market growth is limited over the longterm. You'll recall that we have a factor for dividend growth in the dividendbased approach. Academic studies assume that dividend growth for the overall market  and, for that matter, earnings or EPS growth  cannot exceed the total economy's growth over the long term. If the economy  as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) or national income  grows at 4%, then studies assume that markets cannot collectively outpace this growth rate. Therefore, if you start with an assumption that the market's current valuation is approximately correct and you set the economy's growth as a limit on longterm dividend growth (or earnings or earnings per share growth), a real equity premium of 4 or 5% is pretty much impossible to exceed.
Conclusion
Now that we have explored the risk premium models and their challenges, it is time to look at them with actual data. The first step is to find a reasonable range of expected equity returns; step two is to deduct a riskfree rate of return and; and step three is to try to arrive at a reasonable equity risk premium.

Investing Basics
Statistical Proof That BuyandHold Investing Pays Off
Learn about how the data suggests that the buyandhold investment strategy still works, even after the huge declines of the Great Recession. 
Investing
How ETFs May Save You Thousands
Being vigilant about the amount you pay and what you get for is important, but adding ETFs into the investment mix fits well with a valueseeking nature. 
Stock Analysis
The Biggest Risks of Investing in Netflix Stock
Examine the current state of Netflix Inc., and learn about three of the major fundamental risks that the company is currently facing. 
Mutual Funds & ETFs
3 Fixed Income ETFs in the Mining Sector
Learn about the top three metals and mining exchangetraded funds (ETFs), and explore analyses of their characteristics and how investors can benefit from these ETFs. 
Bonds & Fixed Income
High Yield Bond Investing 101
Taking on highyield bond investments requires a thorough investigation. Here are looking the fundamentals. 
Stock Analysis
Investing in Lumber Liquidators? Read This First
Find out what investors should know before buying Lumber Liquidators shares. Learn about Lumber Liquidators' financial performance and operational outlook. 
Stock Analysis
What Seagate Gains by Acquiring Dot Hill Systems
Examine the Seagate acquisition of Dot Hill Systems, and learn what Seagate is looking to gain by acquiring Dot Hill's software technology. 
Retirement
How RoboAdvisors Can Help You and Your Portfolio
Roboadvisors can add a layer of affordable help and insight to most people's portfolio management efforts, especially as the market continues to mature. 
Mutual Funds & ETFs
Top 3 Muni California Mutual Funds
Discover analyses of the top three California municipal bond mutual funds, and learn about their characteristics, historical performance and suitability. 
Investing Basics
What Does In Specie Mean?
In specie describes the distribution of an asset in its physical form instead of cash.

What is the difference between market risk premium and equity risk premium?
The only meaningful difference between marketrisk premium and equityrisk premium is scope. Both terms refer to the same ... Read Full Answer >> 
Why have mutual funds become so popular?
Mutual funds have become an incredibly popular option for a wide variety of investors. This is primarily due to the automatic ... Read Full Answer >> 
Can working capital be too high?
A company's working capital ratio can be too high in the sense that an excessively high ratio is generally considered an ... Read Full Answer >> 
What licenses does a hedge fund manager need to have?
A hedge fund manager does not necessarily need any specific license to operate a fund, but depending on the type of investments ... Read Full Answer >> 
Can mutual funds invest in hedge funds?
Mutual funds are legally allowed to invest in hedge funds. However, hedge funds and mutual funds have striking differences ... Read Full Answer >> 
When are mutual funds considered a bad investment?
Mutual funds are considered a bad investment when investors consider certain negative factors to be important, such as high ... Read Full Answer >>