The Risk‐Return Relation in International Stock Markets

We investigate the risk‐return relation in international stock markets using realized variance constructed from MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) daily stock price indices. In contrast with the capital asset pricing model, realized variance by itself provides negligible information about future excess stock market returns; however, we uncover a positive and significant risk‐return tradeoff in many countries after controlling for the (U.S.) consumption‐wealth ratio. U.S. realized variance is also significantly related to future international stock market returns; more importantly, it always subsumes the information content of its local counterparts. Our results indicate that stock market variance is an important determinant of the equity premium.     

Conditional Equity Premium and Aggregate Corporate Investment

We document a strong negative relation between aggregate corporate investment and conditional equity premium estimated from direct stock market risk measures. Consistent with the investment-based asset pricing model, the comovement with conditional equity premium fully accounts for aggregate investment's market return predictive power. Similarly, conditional equity premium is a significant determinant of classic Tobin's q measure, although q has much weaker explanatory power for aggregate investment possibly because of its measurement errors. Moreover, the positive relation between aggregate investment and investor sentiment documented in previous studies reflects the fact that both variables correlate closely with conditional equity premium.     

Accounting Ratios and the Cross‐section of Expected Stock Returns

Under clean‐surplus accounting, the log return on a stock can be decomposed into a linear function of the contemporaneous log return on equity, the contemporaneous log dividend–price ratio (if the stock pays a dividend), and both the contemporaneous and lagged values of the log book‐to‐market equity ratio. This paper studies the implications of this decomposition for the cross‐section of conditional expected stock returns. The empirical analysis reveals that the log accounting ratios capture cross‐sectional variation in both the conditional mean and conditional variance of log stock returns, which is consistent with the decomposition. It also brings fresh insights to the relation between firm size (market equity) and conditional expected stock returns. The evidence indicates that the conditional median return increases with firm size, while the conditional return skewness decreases with firm size. Empirically, the skewness effect outweighs the median effect, leading to the well‐documented inverse relation between size and average returns. The results of out‐of‐sample tests suggest that investors could use the information provided by the observed values of the log accounting ratios to formulate more effective portfolio strategies.     

Is the Market Portfolio a Dynamic Factor? Evidence from Individual Stock Returns

This paper uses a factor model to test whether the market portfolio is a dynamic factor in the sense that individual stock returns contain a premium linked to the conditional risk of the market portfolio. The market conditional risk is based on a decomposition of the market variance into a time-varying trend component and a transitory component. The evidence shows that the conditional market premium is rising when the permanent trend rises relative to the conditional variance. The evidence for individual stock returns supports the notion that the market portfolio is a dynamic factor. Individual stock return autocorrelations are fully explained by the time variation in the market premium. The risk premia attributed to static factors are statistically insignificant.     

Where Is the Risk in Value? Evidence from a Market‐to‐Book Decomposition

We study the value premium using the multiples‐based market‐to‐book decomposition of Rhodes‐Kropf, Robinson, and Viswanathan (2005). The market‐to‐value component drives all of the value strategy return, while the value‐to‐book component exhibits no return predictability in either portfolio sorts or firm‐level regressions. Existing results linking market‐to‐book to operating leverage, duration, exposure to investment‐specific technology shocks, and analysts’ risk ratings derive from the unpriced value‐to‐book component. In contrast, results on expectation errors, limits to arbitrage, and certain types of cash flow risk and consumption risk exposure are due to the market‐to‐value component. Overall, our evidence casts doubt on several value premium theories.     

Sentiment-scaled CAPM and market mispricing

This study explores the conditional version of the capital asset pricing model on sentiment to provide a behavioural intuition behind the value premium and market mispricing. We find betas (β) and the market risk premium to vary over time across different sentiment indices and portfolios. More importantly, the state β derived from this sentiment-scaled model provides a behavioural explanation of the value premium and a set of anomalies driven by mispricing. Different from the static β–return relation that gives a flat security market line, we document upward security market lines when plotting portfolio returns against their state βs and portfolios with higher state βs earn higher returns.     

An introduction to security returns

The equity premium - the difference between the return achievable from investment in the equity market (R_M ) and the risk-free rate of return (R_F )- plays an important part in corporate finance. The expression equity premium (sometimes referred to as the equity risk premium) is used to denote the ex ante expectation of investors. The term excess return refers to the ex post achievement of stock returns over and above the risk-free return. If we compare US and UK returns, we find that total returns, real returns and the value of (R_M - R_F ) are all marginally higher for the UK. Summarized evidence appears in Table 1 and Table 6. Such greater returns may be due to an increased risk premium related to increasing unexpected inflation. Particularly important in estimating the equity risk premium is whether excess returns are measured using a geometric or an arithmetic mean return. To a significant extent, this question revolves around mean reversion in stock returns. Evidence of mean reversion is substantial, although it cannot be proved unequivocally. Given the weight of evidence of mean reversion, there may be a strong case for the use of a geometric mean with an equity premium of between 3% and 5% - or even less.     

How Does Information Quality Affect Stock Returns?

Using a simple dynamic asset pricing model, this paper investigates the relationship between the precision of public information about economic growth and stock market returns. After fully characterizing expected returns and conditional volatility, I show that (i) higher precision of signals tends to increase the risk premium, (ii) when signals are imprecise the equity premium is bounded above independently of investors' risk aversion, (iii) return volatility is U-shaped with respect to investors' risk aversion, and (iv) the relationship between conditional expected returns and conditional variance is ambiguous.     

Do Newly Listed Derivatives Affect the Market Risk Premium in a Thin Stock Market?

This study examines the effects on the stock market unitaryrisk premium and volatility associated with the listing of stockand stock index derivatives in Switzerland. Based on a univariateGARCH (1,1) specification of the stock index variance and atime-varying unitary risk premium representation, we can rejectthe hypothesis that stock and stock index derivatives listingsdo not affect the total risk premium. Contrarily to previousempirical evidence, we find that derivatives listings affectboth the conditional market returns’ variance and theunitary risk premium through structural shocks. The gradualmarket completion hypothesis is further corroborated in that,cumulatively, the three stock and stock index options futuresderivatives listings reduced the unitary risk premium whilethe marginal impact of each successive listing decayed. JELClassification: G12, G14.     

Market Expectations in the Cross‐Section of Present Values

Returns and cash flow growth for the aggregate U.S. stock market are highly and robustly predictable. Using a single factor extracted from the cross‐section of book‐to‐market ratios, we find an out‐of‐sample return forecasting R² of 13% at the annual frequency (0.9% monthly). We document similar out‐of‐sample predictability for returns on value, size, momentum, and industry portfolios. We present a model linking aggregate market expectations to disaggregated valuation ratios in a latent factor system. Spreads in value portfolios’ exposures to economic shocks are key to identifying predictability and are consistent with duration‐based theories of the value premium.     

The systematic pricing of market sentiment shock

ABSTRACT

We show that market sentiment shocks create demand shocks for risky assets and a systematic risk for assets. We measure a market sentiment shock as the unexpected portion of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index’s growth. This shock prices stock returns in arbitrage pricing theory framework at 1% after controlling for market, size, value, momentum, and liquidity risk factors. Its premium lowered the implied risk aversion by 97.9% to 11.46 between 1978 and 2009 in our sentiment consumption-based capital-asset-pricing model. Merton’s [1973. “An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Econometrica 41: 867–887]. intertemporal capital-asset-pricing model reconfirms our finding that this market sentiment shock is a systematic risk factor that provides investment opportunities.     

The time‐varying performance of UK analyst recommendation revisions: Do market conditions matter?

This study examines the time‐varying performance of investment strategies following analyst recommendation revisions in the UK stock market, with specific emphasis on the impact of changing market conditions. We find a negative relationship between the recommendation performance and market conditions as measured in terms of past market return and market volatility. In particular, the upgrade (downgrade) portfolio generates significantly positive (negative) net abnormal returns in bad market conditions (e.g., the dot‐com bubble burst in 2000 and the credit crisis in 2007), but not in other periods of time. Moreover, our non‐temporal threshold regression analysis shows that the reported negative relationship disappears when market conditions become better, i.e., when the past market return (market volatility) is higher (lower) than a certain level, indicating the importance of taking non‐linearity into account in the long sample period as examined in this study. Our time‐series bootstrap simulations further confirm that the superior recommendation performance in bad market conditions is not due to random chance; analysts have certain skills in making valuable up/downward revisions in bad markets.     

LIQUIDITY AND ASSET PRICING UNDER THE THREE‐MOMENT CAPM PARADIGM

We examine whether the use of the three‐moment capital asset pricing model can account for liquidity risk. We also make a comparative analysis of a four‐factor model based on Fama–French and Pástor–Stambaugh factors versus a model based solely on stock characteristics. Our findings suggest that neither of the models captures the liquidity premium nor do stock characteristics serve as proxies for liquidity. We also find that sensitivities of stock return to fluctuations in market liquidity do not subsume the effect of characteristic liquidity. Furthermore, our empirical findings are robust to differences in market microstructure or trading protocols between NYSE/AMEX and NASDAQ.     

(Almost) Model‐Free Recovery

Under mild assumptions, we recover the model‐free conditional minimum variance projection of the pricing kernel on various tradeable realized moments of market returns. Recovered conditional moments predict future realizations and give insight into the cyclicality of equity premia, variance risk premia, and the highest attainable Sharpe ratios under the minimum variance probability. The pricing kernel projections are often U‐shaped and give rise to optimal conditional portfolio strategies with plausible market timing properties, moderate countercyclical exposures to higher realized moments, and favorable out‐of‐sample Sharpe ratios.     

The Consumption–Income Ratio,Entrepreneurial Risk,and the U.S. Stock Market

The owners of small noncorporate businesses face substantial and largely uninsurable entrepreneurial risk. They are also an important group of stock owners. This paper explores the role of entrepreneurial risk in explaining time variation in expected U.S. stock returns in the period 1952–2010. It proposes an entrepreneurial distress factor that is based on a cointegrating relationship between aggregate consumption and income from proprietary and nonproprietary wealth. This factor, referred to here as the cpy residual, signals when entrepreneurial income is low in relation to aggregate consumption and other forms of income in the economy. It is highly correlated with cross‐sectional measures of idiosyncratic entrepreneurial and default risk, and it has considerable forecasting power for the expected equity premium. However, the correlation between cpy and the stock market started to decline at the beginning of the 1980s. The decline in this correlation can be associated with increased stock market participation and with the progress of U.S. state‐level bank deregulation. This pattern is consistent with the view that entrepreneurial risk became more easily diversifiable in the wake of U.S. state‐level bank deregulation.     

Stock price informativeness,cross-listings,and investment decisions

We show that a cross-listing enables firms to obtain, from the stock market, more precise information about the value of their growth opportunities. Thus, cross-listed firms make better investment decisions and trade at a premium. This theory of cross-listings implies that the sensitivity of investment to stock prices is larger for cross-listed firms. Moreover, the cross-listing premium is positively related to the size of growth opportunities and negatively related to the quality of managerial information. The sensitivity of the premium to the size of growth opportunities increases with factors that strengthen the impact of the cross-listing on price informativeness.     

What Cost of Capital Should You Use? The Market Has an Answer

The most widely used means of estimating a company's cost of equity capital is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). But as a growing number of academics and practitioners have suggested, use of the CAPM produces estimates that often fail to reflect the risks of the companies as perceived by current and potential investors. The authors' work, together with other research, also suggests that the cost of equity produced by the CAPM is often too high. To the extent this is so, companies are discounting investment projects at rates of return that may be leading them to pass up value‐adding opportunities. The authors advocate the use of a simple and practical alternative to the CAPM that does not use either an assumed market risk premium or a beta. It uses instead an equity premium that is implied by the current market price of a company's stock and, as such, is implicitly derived from investors' assessments of the firm's risk that are reflected in that price. More specifically, the alternative approach solves for the internal rate of return that equates the present value of expected future cash flows to the current market price. In support of this approach, studies have shown that such market‐implied measures are better predictors than CAPM‐based estimates of future stock returns, both at the individual‐firm and aggregate market levels.     

Investor sentiment‐styled index in index futures market

In this paper, we define and analyze the sentiment‐styled index for the CSI 300 index futures in the Chinese futures market. Our sentiment‐styled index for the CSI 300 index futures from April 16, 2010 to April 30, 2019 is constructed by the first and second principal component analyses, rather than only by the first principal component analysis used in the Baker and Wurgler (Journal of Finance 61(4): 1645–1680, 2006) method. The sentiment‐styled index explains 78.38% of the sample variance. The vector error correction model is adapted to study the dynamics of cointegration of the sentiment‐styled index and the logarithmic futures price. We use the GARCH‐DCC model to illustrate the spillover effect between the sentiment‐styled index and the Chinese futures market. We show that this investor sentiment‐styled index does have the price discovery from the Granger causality and common factor weights and the hedging function from the Baba–Engle–Kraft–Kroner model empirically; furthermore, we use the curvature term of the sentiment‐styled index to determine the multiple unit roots. More empirical results for the sentiment‐styled index of the Chinese stock market, the sentiment‐styled index of the CSI 300 index futures, and the return of the CSI 300 index futures market are studied in this paper.     

Estimating the Intertemporal Risk–Return Tradeoff Using the Implied Cost of Capital

We argue that the implied cost of capital (ICC), computed using earnings forecasts, is useful in capturing time variation in expected stock returns. First, we show theoretically that ICC is perfectly correlated with the conditional expected stock return under plausible conditions. Second, our simulations show that ICC is helpful in detecting an intertemporal risk–return relation, even when earnings forecasts are poor. Finally, in empirical analysis, we construct the time series of ICC for the G–7 countries. We find a positive relation between the conditional mean and variance of stock returns, at both the country level and the world market level.     

Risk Measures for Hedge Funds: a Cross‐sectional Approach

This paper analyses the risk‐return trade‐off in the hedge fund industry. We compare semi‐deviation, value‐at‐risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES) and Tail Risk (TR) with standard deviation at the individual fund level as well as the portfolio level. Using the Fama and French (1992) methodology and the combined live and defunct hedge fund data from TASS, we find that the left‐tail risk captured by Expected Shortfall (ES) and Tail Risk (TR) explains the cross‐sectional variation in hedge fund returns very well, while the other risk measures provide statistically insignificant or marginally significant results. During the period between January 1995 and December 2004, hedge funds with high ES outperform those with low ES by an annual return difference of 7%. We provide empirical evidence on the theoretical argument by Artzner et al. (1999) that ES is superior to VaR as a downside risk measure. We also find the Cornish‐Fisher (1937) expansion is superior to the nonparametric method in estimating ES and TR.