The return impact of realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility

We show that the negative relation between realized idiosyncratic volatility, measured over the prior month, and returns is robust in non-January months. Controlling for realized idiosyncratic volatility, we show that the relation between returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility is positive and robust. Realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility are separate and important effects describing the cross-section of returns. We find the negative return on a zero-investment portfolio that is long high realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks and short low realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks is dependent on aggregate investor sentiment. In cross-sectional tests, we find the negative relation is weaker for stocks with a large analyst following and stronger for stocks with high dispersion of analyst forecasts. The positive relation between expected idiosyncratic volatility and returns is not due to mispricing.     

The MAX effect: European evidence

The maximum daily return over the previous month (MAX) of Bali et al. (2011) is a strong and significant predictor of future stock returns in non-U.S. equity markets. Once it is controlled for MAX in the cross-section of average returns, the puzzling negative idiosyncratic volatility-return relation disappears. Consistent with the assumption that MAX is the true effect, for which idiosyncratic volatility is just a proxy, we find that MAX can be traced back to firm fundamentals in the manner of idiosyncratic volatility. The negative MAX-return relation is stronger among firms with high cash flow volatility and weaker among firms with high profitability.     

EXPECTED VOLATILITY,UNEXPECTED VOLATILITY,AND THE CROSS‐SECTION OF STOCK RETURNS

The existing literature finds conflicting results on the cross‐sectional relation between expected returns and idiosyncratic volatility. We contend that at the firm level, the sample correlation between unexpected returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility can cloud the true relation between the expected return and expected idiosyncratic volatility. We show strong evidence that unexpected idiosyncratic volatility is positively related to unexpected returns. Using unexpected idiosyncratic volatility to control for unexpected returns, we find expected idiosyncratic volatility to be significantly and positively related to expected returns. This result holds after controlling for various firm characteristics, and it is robust across different sample periods.     

Are idiosyncratic volatility and MAX priced in the Canadian market?

The negative relationship between realized idiosyncratic volatility (RIvol) and future returns uncovered by Ang et al. (2006) for the U.S. market has been attributed to return reversals. For the Canadian market where return reversals are considerably less important, we find that RIvol is positively related to future returns, even after controlling for risk loadings, illiquidity and reversals. Unlike the findings of Bali et al. (2001) for the U.S. market, we find that the relationship between extreme positive returns (MAX) and future returns for the Canadian market is positive and that idiosyncratic volatility continues to be consistently positively related to future returns after controlling for MAX. We find evidence that suggests that reversals for stocks with extreme daily returns are confined to (typically small) stocks with low institutional holdings.     

Idiosyncratic Cash Flows and Systematic Risk

We show that unpriced cash flow shocks contain information about future priced risk. A positive idiosyncratic shock decreases the sensitivity of firm value to priced risk factors and simultaneously increases firm size and idiosyncratic risk. A simple model can therefore explain book‐to‐market and size anomalies, as well as the negative relation between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns. Empirically, we find that anomalies are more pronounced for firms with high idiosyncratic cash flow volatility. More generally, our results imply that any economic variable correlated with the history of idiosyncratic shocks can help to explain expected stock returns.     

Does more information in stock price lead to greater or smaller idiosyncratic return volatility?

We investigate the relation between price informativeness and idiosyncratic return volatility in a multi-asset, multi-period noisy rational expectations equilibrium. We show that the relation between price informativeness and idiosyncratic return volatility is either U-shaped or negative. Using several price informativeness measures, we empirically document a U-shaped relation between price informativeness and idiosyncratic return volatility. Our study therefore reconciles the opposing views in the following two strands of literature: (1) the growing body of research showing that firms with more informative stock prices have greater idiosyncratic return volatility, and (2) the studies arguing that more information in price reduces idiosyncratic return volatility.     

Explaining the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle using Stochastic Discount Factors

I use Stochastic Discount Factors to examine the sources of the idiosyncratic volatility premium. I find that non-zero risk aversion and firms’ non-systematic coskewness determine the premium on idiosyncratic volatility risk. The firm’s non-systematic coskewness measures the comovement of the asset’s volatility with the market return. When I control for the non-systematic coskewness factor, I find no significant relation between idiosyncratic volatility and stock expected returns. My results are robust across different sample periods and firm characteristics.     

CEO's managerial power,board committee memberships and idiosyncratic volatility

Based on Upper Echelons Theory and Agency Theory, we explore the effect of CEOs' power through their tenure, board committee membership and other corporate governance factors on idiosyncratic volatility. Our study addresses the gap in the literature to find the direct link between the source of corporate governance practices and idiosyncratic volatility in stock price. We use a generalised method of moments in a panel analysis of Australian firms for 2004–2013 and a robust model that controls for firm size, firm age, trading volume, market-to-book ratio, dividend payout, the global financial crisis, product market competition and financial intermediaries. We find that CEOs who have stronger managerial power are associated with lower idiosyncratic volatility. This determining factor remains significant with the inclusion of widely-researched firm characteristics and external factors on idiosyncratic volatility in our robust analysis.     

Additional evidence on transparency and bank financial performance

This paper examines the relationship between volatility and the probability of occurrence of expected extreme returns in the Canadian market. Four measures of volatility are examined: implied volatility from firm option prices, conditional volatility calculated using an EGARCH model, idiosyncratic volatility, and expected shortfall. A significantly positive relationship is observed between a firm's idiosyncratic volatility and the probability of occurrence of an extreme return in the subsequent month for firms. A 10% increase in idiosyncratic volatility in a given month is associated with the probability of an extreme shock in the subsequent month (top or bottom 1.5% of the returns distribution) of 26.4%. Other firm characteristics, including firm age, price, volume and book‐to‐market ratio, are also shown to be significantly related to subsequent firm extreme returns. The effects of conditional and implied volatility are mixed. The E‐GARCH and expected shortfall measures of conditional volatility are consistent with mean reversion: high short term realizations of conditional volatility foreshadow a lower probability of extreme returns.     

High Idiosyncratic Volatility and Low Returns: A Prospect Theory Explanation

The well‐documented negative relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns is puzzling if investors are risk‐averse. However, under prospect theory, while investors are risk‐averse in the domain of gains, they exhibit risk‐seeking behavior in the domain of losses. Consistent with risk‐seeking investors’ preference for high‐volatility stocks in the loss domain, we find that the negative relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns is concentrated in stocks with unrealized capital losses, but is nonexistent in stocks with unrealized capital gains. This finding is robust to control for short‐term return reversals and maximum daily return, among other variables.     

Idiosyncratic risk and expected returns in frontier markets: Evidence from GCC

We investigate the pricing of idiosyncratic volatility of seven frontier markets in six GCC countries. We find a significant (marginal) negative relationship between expected returns and lagged idiosyncratic volatility for individual stocks in Saudi Arabia (Qatar) but none in Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. However, when we estimate conditional idiosyncratic volatility either by EGARCH or AR Models, the relationship turns positive. Introducing unexpected idiosyncratic volatility as an explanatory variable to control for any unexpected returns uncovers the true relationship between expected idiosyncratic volatility and expected returns. The evidence turns out to be robust for return reversals and other control variables. Moreover, the pricing of idiosyncratic risk is less evident in higher country governance and seems to be unrelated to the degree of financial development.     

Effects of Passive Intensity on Aggregate Price Dynamics

We find that passive intensity (PI), measured by the passive‐linked share of total stock market trading volume, is strongly related to the overall pattern of stock price movements. A one‐standard‐deviation increase in PI is associated with an 8% higher price synchronicity. We further investigate the channels through which this relation is established by separately analyzing its impact on aggregate systematic and idiosyncratic volatility of stock returns. PI has a positive effect on systematic volatility and a negative impact on firm‐specific volatility. Consistent with the effect of passive trading on price dynamics, we find evidence that PI is negatively associated with mutual funds alpha dissimilarity. After controlling for market and idiosyncratic volatility, a one‐standard‐deviation increase in PI corresponds to a 0.20% decrease in fund dissimilarity. Our findings are robust after controlling for various macro and corporate factors known to affect systematic or firm‐specific volatility.     

Using Expectations to Test Asset Pricing Models

Asset pricing models generate predictions relating assets' expected rates of return and their risk attributes. Most tests of these models have employed realized rates of return as a proxy for expected return. We use analysts' expected rates of return to examine the relation between these expectations and firm attributes. By assuming that analysts' expectations are unbiased estimates of market-wide expected rates of return, we can circumvent the use of realized rates of return and provide evidence on the predictions emanating from traditional asset pricing models. We find a positive, robust relation between expected return and market beta and a negative relation between expected return and firm size, consistent with the notion that these are risk factors. We do not find that high book-to-market firms are expected to earn higher returns than low book-to-market firms, inconsistent with the notion that book-to-market is a risk factor.     

Idiosyncratic volatility,fundamentals, and institutional herding: Evidence from the Japanese stock market

Using Japanese data from 1975 to 2003, we show that both institutional herding and firm earnings are positively related to idiosyncratic volatility. We reject the hypothesis that institutional investors herd toward stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility and systematic risk. Our results suggest that a behavior story may explain the negative premium earned by high idiosyncratic volatility stocks found by Ang et al. [Ang, Andrew, Hodrick, Robert J., Yuhang Xing, Xiaoyan Zhang, 2004. The cross-section of volatility and expected returns, Forthcoming Journal of Finance]. We also find that the dispersions of change in institutional ownership and return-on-asset move together with the market aggregate idiosyncratic volatility over time. Our results suggest that investor behavior and stock fundamentals may both help explain the time-series pattern of market aggregate idiosyncratic volatility.     

How asymmetric is U.S. stock market volatility?

This paper explores differences in the impact of equally large positive and negative surprise return shocks in the aggregate U.S. stock market on: (1) the volatility predictions of asymmetric time-series models, (2) implied volatility, and (3) realized volatility. Following large negative surprise return shocks, both asymmetric time-series models (such as the EGARCH and GJR models) and implied volatility predict an increase in volatility and, consistent with this, ex post realized volatility normally rises as predicted. Following large positive return shocks, asymmetric time-series models predict an increase in volatility (albeit a much smaller increase than following a negative shock of the same magnitude), but both implied and realized volatilities generally fall sharply. While asymmetric time-series models predict a decline in volatility following near-zero returns, both implied and realized volatility are normally little changed from levels observed prior to the stable market. The reasons for the differences are explored.     

Determinants of idiosyncratic volatility: Evidence from the Indian stock market

This paper investigates whether firm-specific characteristics explain idiosyncratic volatility in the stocks of non-financial firms traded in the Indian stock market. It employs the linear time series five-factor model, augmented with a liquidity factor and the conditional EGARCH model, to extract yearly idiosyncratic volatility. We estimate a panel data regression to quantify the relationship between firm-specific characteristics and the volatility of individual securities. The results show that idiosyncratic volatility is significant in emerging markets such as India, and that cross-sectional return variations of firms are associated with firm-specific characteristics such as firm size, book-to-market ratio, momentum, liquidity, cash flow-to-price ratio, and returns on assets. We find that the idiosyncratic risk documented in this study is associated with smaller size of company, higher liquidity, low momentum, high book-to-market ratio, and low cash flow-to-price ratio. The findings suggest need to develop alternative tools to make investment decisions in emerging markets.     

Fundamentals or Managerial Discretion? The Relationship between Accrual Variability and Future Stock Return Volatility

This study extends the theoretical framework of Callen and Segal (2004) and Vuolteenaho (2002) to investigate the association between accrual variability and firm‐level stock return volatility. The empirical evidence supports our prediction that increased uncertainty in current‐period accounting accruals is associated with significantly higher volatility of future stock returns, and the results are valid for measures of both systematic and idiosyncratic volatility. When accrual variability is decomposed into fundamental and discretionary portions, we find that the positive relationship between accrual variability and future stock return volatility is dominated by the fundamental component of accrual variability. Overall, our results suggest that uncertainty reflected in accrual information is subsequently reflected in the fluctuation of future stock returns, and that the predictive content in accruals primarily reflects firms' fundamental uncertainty, rather than any effects of managerial choices and interventions in the accounting process.     

Idiosyncratic Volatility and Firm‐Specific News: Beyond Limited Arbitrage

We examine the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and returns around news announcements. Mispricing is most likely to occur during news announcements. If idiosyncratic volatility generates a limit to arbitrage, then the negative relation between returns and news volatility should be stronger than the relation to nonnews volatility. Instead, we find nonnews volatility has a robust negative relation to returns and lacks key features expected if volatility were a reflection of limits to arbitrage. Pricing of nonnews volatility is related to lottery‐like features of a stock's return. Our results suggest that volatility has a price effect beyond a limit to arbitrage.     

Real Options,Volatility, and Stock Returns

We provide evidence that the positive relation between firm‐level stock returns and firm‐level return volatility is due to firms’ real options. Consistent with real option theory, we find that the positive volatility‐return relation is much stronger for firms with more real options and that the sensitivity of firm value to changes in volatility declines significantly after firms exercise their real options. We reconcile the evidence at the aggregate and firm levels by showing that the negative relation at the aggregate level may be due to aggregate market conditions that simultaneously affect both market returns and return volatility.     

Difference of opinion and the cross-section of equity returns: Australian evidence

This paper examines the relationship between difference of opinion among investors and the return on Australian equities. The paper is the first to employ dispersion in analysts' earnings forecasts, abnormal turnover and idiosyncratic volatility as proxies for difference of opinion. We document a negative relationship between difference of opinion and stock returns when dispersion in analysts' forecasts and idiosyncratic volatility are employed as proxies. This result provides support for Miller's (1977) model and is consistent with the findings of Diether et al. (2002). In contrast, we find mixed results when using abnormal turnover to proxy difference of opinion.