DISCUSSION.

This article presents the author's comments on a paper that examined expected returns on stocks. The author suggests that the paper did an excellent job evaluating variance-bound literature; however, he believes that the analysis conducted was partial and failed to highlight the conclusions reached by other prominent researchers on volatility. The author also is skeptical of the conclusion drawn in the paper that suggests turning to nonstandard models for expected returns to explain stock price volatility. The author notes that the field has come a long way in understanding the statistical traps involved with volatility and pushes for more research.