An examination of alternative CAPM-based models in UK stock returns

We evaluate the performance of unconditional and conditional versions of seven stochastic discount factor models in UK stock returns between January 1975 and December 2001. We find that the conditional four-moment capital asset pricing model (CAPM) has the best performance among the models we consider in terms of the lowest [Hansen, L.P., Jagannathan, R., 1997. Assessing specification errors in stochastic discount factor models. Journal of Finance 52, 591–607] distance measure and explaining the time-series predictability of industry portfolio excess returns. Conditional models also do a better job than unconditional models. However we find that the superior performance of the conditional four-moment CAPM, and conditional models in general, arises in part due to overfitting the data.     

The Cost of Capital of Cross‐listed Firms

This paper analyses the cost of capital of firms with foreign equity listings. Our purpose is to shed light on the question whether international and domestic asset pricing models yield a different estimate of the cost of capital for cross‐listed stocks. We distinguish between (i) the multifactor ICAPM of Solnik (1979) and Sercu (1980) including both the global market portfolio and exchange rate risk premia and (ii) the single factor domestic CAPM. We test for the significance of the cost of capital differential in a sample of 336 cross‐listed stocks from nine countries in the period 1980–99. Our hypothesis is that the cost of capital differential is substantial for firms with international listings, as these are often large multinationals with a strong international orientation. We find that the asset pricing models yield a significantly different estimate of the cost of capital for only 12% of the cross‐listed companies. The size of the cost of capital differential is around 50 basis points for the US, 80 basis points for the UK and 100 basis points for France.     

Estimating the Cost of Equity Capital for Property-Liability Insurers

This article presents new evidence on the cost of equity capital by line of insurance for the property‐liability insurance industry. To do so we obtain firm beta estimates and then use the full‐information industry beta (FIB) methodology to decompose the cost of capital by line. We obtain full‐information beta estimates using the standard one‐factor capital asset pricing model and extend the FIB methodology to incorporate the Fama–French three‐factor cost of capital model. The analysis suggests the cost of capital for insurers using the Fama–French model is significantly higher than the estimates based upon the CAPM. In addition, we find evidence of significant differences in the cost of equity capital across lines.     

Alternative Models for Estimating the Cost of Equity Capital for Property/Casualty Insurers

This paper estimates the cost of equity capital for Property/Casualty insurers by applying three alternative asset pricing models: the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), and a unified CAPM/APT model (Wei (1988). The in-sample forecast ability of the models is evaluated by applying the mean squared error method, the Theil U2 (1966) statistic, and the Granger and Newbold (1978) conditional efficiency evaluation. Based on forecast evaluation procedures, the APT and Wei's unified CAPM/APT models perform better than the CAPM in estimating the cost of equity capital for the PC insurers and a combined forecast may outperform the individual forecasts.     

A Comparison of Cost of Equity Estimates of Local and Global CAPMs

Cost of equity estimates are compared for three pricing models: the traditional local CAPM, the single (market) factor global CAPM, and the two‐factor global CAPM, with both market and currency index factors. For 2989 US stocks, the average difference in the cost of equity estimates is about 48 basis points between the local CAPM and the single‐factor global CAPM, and is about 61 basis points between the two global models. For 70 developed‐market ADRs, the corresponding average differences are 76 and 47 basis points, respectively. For 48 emerging‐market ADRs, the corresponding average differences are 57 and 70 basis points.     

Equity financing and innovation: Is Europe different from the United States?

During the mid and late 1990s young, high-tech firms in the US experienced a supply shift in both internal and external equity fueling a finance-driven boom in corporate R&D. This paper examines whether R&D spending in Europe in a similar way was sensitive to fluctuations in the supply of internal and external equity during the late 1990s and early 2000s. I conjecture that UK and Continental Europe, due to their different financial systems, differ in terms of equity supply. I estimate dynamic R&D regression models for UK and Continental European high-tech firms separately and find significant joint cash-flow effects for newly listed firms in both samples. However, only new firms in the UK experienced a joint external equity effect as well. The findings of this paper suggest a channel through which market-based financial systems outperform the bank-based economies of Continental Europe.     

Alternative measures of the Federal Reserve Banks’ cost of equity capital

The Monetary Control Act of 1980 requires the Federal Reserve System to provide payment services to depository institutions through the 12 Federal Reserve Banks at prices that fully reflect the costs a private-sector provider would incur, including a cost of equity capital (COE). Although Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 1997. Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics 43, 153–193] conclude that COE estimates are “woefully” and “unavoidably” imprecise, the Reserve Banks require such an estimate every year. We examine several COE estimates based on the CAPM model and compare them using econometric and materiality criteria. Our results suggest that the benchmark CAPM model applied to a large peer group of competing firms provides a COE estimate that is not clearly improved upon by using a narrow peer group, introducing additional factors into the model, or taking account of additional firm-level data, such as leverage and line-of-business concentration. Thus, a standard implementation of the benchmark CAPM model provides a reasonable COE estimate, which is needed to impute costs and set prices for the Reserve Banks’ payments business.     

上市公司权益资本成本的测度与评价——基于我国证券市场的经验检验

权益资本成本(CofEC)是公司筹资和投资决策时需要考虑的重要问题。然而,如何测定公司的权益资本成本,目前尚未得出统一的结论。本文在现有研究的基础上,从事后和事前两个角度测度了我国上市公司的权益资本成本,并从经济和统计两个角度对不同的测度进行了评价。研究得出,不同方法得出的权益资本成本测度差异明显,最大差异达到了12.13%,这些差异对我国公司融资顺序(偏好)是否主要基于资本成本考虑的判断会造成重大影响。从经济角度看,事前权益资本成本测度要优于CAPM和Fama-French三因子模型下事后权益资本成本,在事前权益资本成本测度中,国内外文献中普遍运用的GLS模型下的CofEC表现不够理想,而PEG和MPEG模型下的CofEC能更好地捕捉各风险因素的影响,尽管其时间序列计量误差方差相对较大。     

民营企业股权激励计划与研发投入关系分析

以2008~2011年民营上市公司为样本,使用3SLS回归分析以及DID模型,从外部环境以及内部环境两个方面分析了我国民营企业股权激励计划对于企业研发投入的影响。实证研究发现,民营企业实施股权激励能够促进企业的研发投入,而高科技行业的民营企业实施股权激励能够加强这种正向影响;对于股权激励具体方案的分析表明,激励计划的有效期与研发投入有弱相关关系,行权条件当中非财务指标的使用对于企业研发投入有正向影响,但是相对绩效指标的使用则对于研发投入有抑制作用。     

On the differences in measuring SMB and HML in the UK – Do they matter?

The Fama–French (FF) three factor model expands the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to include two additional factors to the market factor – SMB, employed to capture a firm size effect in returns and HML employed to capture book-to-market effects in returns. In the UK, different researchers use different ways of calculating SMB and HML in the context of empirical applications of the three factor model, or extensions of it, perhaps because they believe the differences in the construction of the SMB and HML factors to be relatively unimportant from an empirical standpoint. We investigate whether indeed factor construction methods are unimportant. Our conclusion is that they do matter.     

An inquiry into the economic fundamentals of the Fama and French equity factors

This study investigates the economic underpinnings of the Fama and French three-factor (FF3) model. We evaluate the impact of surprises in 23 different types of macroeconomic announcements on stock returns in the framework of the CAPM and the FF3 model. The relative merit of the FF3 model is demonstrated whenever macroeconomic surprises have a smaller impact on the returns within an FF3 model versus their impact within the CAPM. In general, there is strong evidence to suggest that the FF3 model outperforms the CAPM. The relative merit of the FF3 model is highlighted by its ability to capture information related to Personal Consumption, Retail Sales, CPI, PPI, Factory Orders, Leading Indicators, Construction Spending, Housing Starts, and New Home Sales. An attribution analysis of the relative performance of SMB and HML equity factors indicate that both factors, in isolation, equally account for macroeconomic surprises. Lastly, there is evidence that the FF3 model can be marginally improved by incorporating credit variables.     

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Liquidity,Momentum, Size and Book‐to‐Market Value Factors in Equity Pricing on a Heterogeneous Sample: Evidence from Asia

This paper compares the size and book‐to‐market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman ( 1993 ) with two Liu ( 2006 ) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra‐market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.     

Public entrants,public equity finance and creative destruction

We explore the importance of new public firms and public equity finance for R&D and creative destruction in the US high-tech sector. Over 1900 new public firms enter high-tech manufacturing between 1970 and 2004; they are increasingly R&D intensive and rely extensively on public equity finance in the 1980s and 1990s. We estimate dynamic R&D models and find a strong link between public equity finance and R&D for new entrants, but not established entrants or incumbents. Further, recent cohorts of public entrants have a substantial economic impact: by 2000, recent public entrants account for almost half of high-tech sales and more than half of R&D. Variation in the availability of public equity finance has a marked impact on entrant R&D and the rate at which entrants take market share from incumbents. Our findings identify a key channel through which public equity markets facilitate the process of creative destruction.     

Beyond CAPM: estimating the cost of equity considering idiosyncratic risks

The present study proposes a new evaluation approach aimed at estimating the cost of equity through standardized models which consider an innovative set of firm-specific information on the main unsystematic risks which are typical of any business. Our objective is extending the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) by defining a standard formula for quantifying the premium for certain idiosyncratic risks as a function of a new set of firm-specific quantitative information. We define two econometric models, for listed and non-listed firms respectively, which consider five idiosyncratic risk factors: firm size, value factor, operating risks, financial structure and stock market price volatility. The models were tested on a sample of European non-financial companies. The empirical results show that while the CAPM systematically underestimates the cost of equity, the proposed models correctly estimate its expected value; furthermore, they show a slight improvement also in terms of estimates’ volatility. Due to their efficacy and ease of use, the proposed models represent a valid practical tool for investors, analysts and professional evaluators. This work contributes to the existing literature by proposing a typologically innovative extension of the CAPM set of explanatory variables, defining and testing new models for the estimation of the unsystematic risks’ spread of the cost of equity based on an original set of firm-specific accounting and market information.     

Accounting‐based Risk Management and the Capital Asset Pricing Model: An Empirical Comparison

Accounting‐based risk management (ABRM) is a theoretically consistent and practical tool for calculating the cost of capital from underlying financial ratios. In this paper, a sample of ABRM‐generated discount factors is used to generate risk‐adjusted returns, which are compared to CAPM equivalent discount factors. In view of the debates about CAPM's validity, alternative models, the nature and scale of the equity risk premium, and the importance of discount rates in capital budgeting and asset valuation, ABRM's characteristics and resulting discount rates offer a potentially useful alternative. Results suggest that although average discount rates are comparable, their cross‐sectional distributions are dissimilar, so that investors in an average risky firm are overcompensated for systematic risk when using CAPM discount rates, because CAPM discount factors overestimate risk arising from fixed costs in most firms.     

Analyzing the German accounting triad — “Accounting Premium” for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP vis-à-vis German GAAP?

This paper critically examines the impact of voluntary adoption of Internationally Accepted Accounting Principles (IAAP, i.e., IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP) on the cost of equity capital in Germany. We find that (1) overall cost of equity-capital estimates in the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) for companies applying IAAP are significantly lower compared to those applying German GAAP, (2) an enhanced multi-factor model which incorporates the accounting-regime differences (called “GM model”) absorbs the cost of equity-capital differences, and (3) changes of the institutional background in Germany and of the accounting standards lead to different cost of equity capital effects for subperiods of the 1998–2004 voluntary-adoption period, while particularly controlling for effects like self-selection, cross-listing, and New Market (Neuer Markt) listing.The central thesis advanced in this paper is that changes in the accounting standards and the institutional infrastructure can influence the impact of applying IAAP. Therefore, we suggest incorporating an accounting factor into the cost of equity-capital analysis.     

R&D expenditures and implied equity risk premiums

This study investigates the relationship between research and development (R&D) expenditures and risk premiums implied in the costs of equity capital. We posit that R&D expenditures represent an information risk factor resulting from both information asymmetry about R&D between investors and managers and low-quality R&D reporting that impairs the coordination between investors and managers with respect to managers’ investment decisions. Our results support our position by showing a positive association between R&D expenditures and implied equity risk premiums. From this research along with prior studies, investors can have better knowledge about the risky nature of R&D expenditures that drive up implied risk premiums and at the same time provide opportunities to earn excess returns in a short to long horizon. Accounting standard setters can benefit from this study’s findings that R&D expenditures represent an off-balance-sheet risk factor and thus warrant reconsidering SFAS No. 2 for potential capitalization of R&D expenditures.     

Research and Development Activity and Expected Returns in the United Kingdom

Fama and French (1992) show that size and book-to-price dominate CAPM betaand other variables such as the price-earnings ratio and dividend yield in explainingthe cross-section of US stock returns. Comparable evidence for the UK points to abook-to-price effect, but not a size effect (Chan and Chui, 1996; Strong and Xu, 1997).In this paper, our first contribution is to show that a measure of research and development (RD) helps explain cross-sectional variation in UK stock returns. Our cross-sectional results on the association between stock returns and RD are consistent with recent US evidence reported by Lev and Sougiannis (1996, 1999) and Chan, Lakonishok and Sougiannis (2001). Fama and French (1993, 1995, 1996) also show that a three-factor model captures a high proportion of the time series variation in portfolio returns, again for the US. Our second contribution is to show, for the UK, that a modification to the three-factor model to take account of RD activity can significantly enhance the explanatory power of the three-factor model. We show that, as a practical matter, estimated risk premia based on the modified three-factor model can differ considerably from risk premia estimated using the CAPM or the three-factor model. In particular, risk premia for industries in whichfew firms undertake RD activities tend to be over-estimated.     

Estimating the Equity Risk Premium Using Accounting Fundamentals

This study uses recent developments in the theoretical modelling of the links between unrecorded accounting goodwill, accounting profitability and the cost of equity, together with Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) betas, to estimate the ex-ante equity risk premium in the UK. The results suggest that, over our sample period from 1968 to 1995, the premium has been in the region of 5%. Our estimate lends support to the view that the ex-ante equity risk premium is substantially less than the historical average of the excess of equity returns over the risk-free rate, and is similar to the rates applied recently by UK competition regulators.     

Riding the waves of technology through the decades: The relation between industry-level information technology intensity and the cost of equity capital

This paper examines the effect that information technology (IT) investments have on the industry cost of equity capital. We find that industry IT intensity, defined as the relative amount of IT investment to total fixed asset expenditures, is negatively related to the industry cost of equity capital. These results indicate that industries with higher levels of IT investment have lower cost of equity capital. We also find that the relation between IT intensity and cost of equity capital changes over time. Initially, investors viewed IT investments as risky ventures and demanded higher levels of cost of equity (or higher return on their investment) for those industries investing in IT. However, beginning in the 1980s, as IT became more reliable, more cost effective, and had the ability to transform businesses, investors viewed IT Intensity as a positive business strategy with less associated risks and reduced their required cost of equity capital (or lower return on their investment). Extrapolating from our industry results, IT investments allow firms to potentially raise capital at a lower price so they have more assets to employ, indicating that IT investments can be a key factor for business success.