The Lead-Lag Relation Between Spot and Futures Markets Under Different Short-Selling Regimes

We examine the lead‐lag relation between index futures and the underlying index under three types of short‐selling restrictions on stocks in Hong Kong. Our results indicate that lifting short‐selling restrictions can enhance the informational efficiency of the stock market relative to the index futures. We also investigate the impact of two market characteristics, market conditions and the magnitude of mispricing on the lead‐lag relations under different short‐selling regimes. Our findings suggest that if we remove restrictions, the contemporaneous price relation between the futures and cash markets becomes stronger particularly in the falling market and when the cash market is relatively overpriced.     

Arbitrage Asymmetry and the Idiosyncratic Volatility Puzzle

Buying is easier than shorting for many equity investors. Combining this arbitrage asymmetry with the arbitrage risk represented by idiosyncratic volatility (IVOL) explains the negative relation between IVOL and average return. The IVOL‐return relation is negative among overpriced stocks but positive among underpriced stocks, with mispricing determined by combining 11 return anomalies. Consistent with arbitrage asymmetry, the negative relation among overpriced stocks is stronger, especially for stocks less easily shorted, so the overall IVOL‐return relation is negative. Further supporting our explanation, high investor sentiment weakens the positive relation among underpriced stocks and, especially, strengthens the negative relation among overpriced stocks.     

Analyst Disagreement,Mispricing, and Liquidity*

This paper documents a close link between mispricing and liquidity by investigating stocks with high analyst disagreement. Previous research finds that these stocks tend to be overpriced, but that prices correct downwards as uncertainty about earnings is resolved. Our analysis suggests that one reason mispricing has persisted through the years is that analyst disagreement coincides with high trading costs. We also show that in the cross‐section, the less liquid stocks tend to be more severely overpriced. Additionally, increases in aggregate market liquidity accelerate the convergence of prices to fundamentals. As a result, returns of the initially overpriced stocks are negatively correlated with the time series of innovations in aggregate market liquidity.     

Are extreme returns priced in the stock market? European evidence

This paper revisits some recently found evidence in the literature on the cross-section of stock returns for a carefully constructed dataset of euro area stocks. First, we confirm recent results for US data and find evidence of a negative cross-sectional relation between extreme positive returns and average returns after controlling for characteristics such as momentum, book-to-market, size, liquidity and short term return reversal. We argue that this is the case because these stocks have lottery-like characteristics, which is attractive to certain investors. Also, these stocks tend to be very volatile so that arbitrageurs are discouraged from correcting potential mispricing. As a consequence, these stocks are often overpriced and hence face lower expected returns. Second, when we control for extreme returns, the recently found negative relationship between idiosyncratic risk and future returns is less robust. In our models, after adding maximum returns, the relationship is insignificant and sometimes even positive. We also find that idiosyncratic skewness and coskewness play an important role for asset pricing, as predicted by several theoretical models.     

Revisiting the ICAPM under the distortion of risk–return tradeoff in short-horizon stock returns

We suggest that the distortion of the positive risk–return relation in the ICAPM is a consequence of trading by informed investors to exploit mispricing. We hypothesize and demonstrate that a non-positive (strongly positive) risk–return relation following positive (negative) market returns is attributed to short-selling (purchasing) of overpriced (underpriced) stocks along with optimistic (pessimistic) expectations conditional on good (bad) market news. We verify this asymmetry in the risk–return relation through the indirect risk–return relation conditional on good (bad) market news. We also find that the attenuation (reinforcement) of the positive risk–return relation is more profound in high- (low-) sentiment periods.     

Is the accrual anomaly robust to firm-level analysis?

This study investigates whether firm-level accrual mispricing exists and if such mispricing is persistent. Our results show both under and overpricing of accruals that persevere. Specifically, we show that a trading strategy going a dollar long (short) in underpriced (overpriced) accrual firms yields significant abnormal returns in most years investigated. We examine whether firm characteristics such as size, analyst following and real activities management can explain why some firms are mispriced and others not. Our findings show that firm-level mispricing differs from that documented at the country-level. Whilst the country-level anomaly seems to have diminished; the firm-level accrual anomaly remains.     

Short Interest and Lottery Stocks

We find short interest‐related mispricing is strongest in lottery stocks. As stocks become more lottery‐like, arbitrage risk increases, resulting in higher overpricing (underpricing) in high (low) relative short interest (RSI) stocks. Monthly portfolio alphas are –1.61% for high RSI lottery stocks, whereas high RSI stocks with the least lottery‐like attributes show statistically insignificant alphas. Among lightly shorted stocks, lottery securities exhibit monthly alphas of 1.80%. Thus, although lottery stocks as a group typically underperform, investors can earn positive abnormal returns in lightly shorted lottery stocks. Our results suggest that lottery stocks’ greater noise trader risk and higher transactions costs impedes arbitrage in short interest‐related mispricing.     

The real impact of stock market mispricing — Evidence from Australia

Using a large panel of Australian firms, we investigate if mispricing in the stock market has an impact on firm-level investment. A significantly positive relation is documented between investment and the proxies for mispricing, suggesting that overpriced (underpriced) firms tend to overinvest (underinvest). Furthermore, we find that equity-dependent firms display a more pronounced sensitivity of investment to stock misvaluation than do nonequity-dependent firms. Taken together, our findings evidence that mispricing in Australian capital markets may have significant influence on the real economy, and the influence works though an equity-financing channel.     

Idiosyncratic risk,costly arbitrage,and the cross-section of stock returns

We test a new cross-sectional relation between expected stock return and idiosyncratic risk implied by the theory of costly arbitrage. If arbitrageurs find it more difficult to correct the mispricing of stocks with high idiosyncratic risk, there should be a positive (negative) relation between expected return and idiosyncratic risk for undervalued (overvalued) stocks. We combine several well-known anomalies to measure stock mispricing and proxy stock idiosyncratic risk using an exponential GARCH model for stock returns. We confirm that average stock returns monotonically increase (decrease) with idiosyncratic risk for undervalued (overvalued) stocks. Overall, our results support the importance of idiosyncratic risk as an arbitrage cost.     

Distress risk anomaly and misvaluation

This paper examines the effects of misvaluation on the well-documented negative relation between distress risk and stock returns (distress risk anomaly). Findings indicate that distress risk is negatively related to subsequent stock returns only in the subset of the most overvalued stocks, which is consistent with mispricing explanations provided by prior studies. The distress anomaly disappears after controlling for mispricing effects. Further analysis reveals earnings management to be one possible cause for the overvaluation of highly distressed firms. The results are robust to alternative specifications of distress risk and mispricing measures.     

Mispricing and the cross-section of stock returns

This paper employs the Campbell-Shiller (Rev Financ Stud 1:195–228, 1988) VAR model to derive a model-based mispricing measure that captures investor overreaction to growth. Using this mispricing measure, we find that stocks with low levels of mispricing outperform otherwise similar stocks. The long–short mispricing strategy generates statistically and economically significant returns over the sample period of July 1981 to June 2006. Moreover, this mispricing strategy outperforms the contrarian strategy using various accounting-fundamental-to-price ratios. Our results cast doubt on the risk story in explaining the abnormal returns of the mispricing strategy. Rather, our evidence suggests that asset prices reflect both covariance risk and mispricing.

Daily short interest,idiosyncratic risk,and stock returns

This paper examines the relation between short selling and returns and the impact of arbitrage costs on short sellers’ behavior. Using daily UK short selling data, we find that stocks with low short interest levels experience significant positive returns on both an equal- and value-weighted basis. Economic theory predicts that short sellers avoid establishing positions in stocks with high idiosyncratic risk. Our results indicate a negative relation between short interest and returns among high idiosyncratic risk stocks and that short selling activity is mostly concentrated in low idiosyncratic risk stocks where it is less costly to arbitrage fundamental risk.     

Market capitalization and Value-at-Risk

The potential of economic variables for financial risk measurement is an open field for research. This article studies the role of market capitalization in the estimation of Value-at-Risk (VaR). We test the performance of different VaR methodologies for portfolios with different market capitalization. We perform the analysis considering separately financial crisis periods and non-crisis periods. We find that VaR methods perform differently for portfolios with different market capitalization. For portfolios with stocks of different sizes we obtain better VaR estimates when taking market capitalization into account. We also find that it is important to consider crisis and non-crisis periods separately when estimating VaR across different sizes. This study provides evidence that market fundamentals are relevant for risk measurement.     

Exchange-traded fund ownership and underlying stock mispricing

In response to the increasing proliferation of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and a warning from the Wall Street hero Michael Burry that passive investing has put the stock market into ‘bubble’ territory, we examine the relation between stock ownership by ETFs and mispricing from 2002 to 2018. We find that increased ETF ownership induces overpricing in underlying stocks. We then identify three mechanisms for this relationship: the overpricing of stocks attributable to increased ETF ownership is stronger for stocks that experience an increase in passive ETF ownership; during periods characterised by high investor sentiment; and for illiquid stocks. Our results are robust to a battery of tests including alternative measures for all key variables and are not confounded by the global financial crisis. Additional analyses show that mispricing caused by ETF ownership change is not driven by firm fundamentals and does not exacerbate stocks' information environment around earnings announcement.     

Short Selling and the Weekend Effect for NYSE Securities

Using short-sale transactions data, we examine the relation between short selling and the weekend effect. We do not find that short selling is more abundant on Monday than on Friday, even for stocks that have higher Friday returns. We find that short sellers execute more short-sale volume during the middle of the week, and that the positive correlation between short selling and returns on Monday is greater, on average, than the correlation on the other days of the week. Our results are robust to subsamples of stocks with larger weekend effects and stocks that do not have listed options.     

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.     

Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?

This paper shows that the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns. A zero-cost portfolio that takes a long (short) position in stocks with the least (most) diversified individual investor clientele generates an annual, risk-adjusted return of 5–9%. This spread reflects the combined effects of sentiment-induced mispricing, narrow risk framing, and asymmetric information, where the sentiment effect is the strongest. Furthermore, the influence on returns is stronger among smaller, low institutionally owned, and hard-to-arbitrage stocks. These results are robust to concerns about relatively short sample size, improper factor model specification, slow information diffusion, and high transactions costs.     

Costly arbitrage and idiosyncratic risk: Evidence from short sellers

Previous studies have shown that high short interest stocks have low subsequent returns. We test whether the persistence of this effect is due to costs limiting arbitrage. The arbitrage cost that we focus on is idiosyncratic risk which, regardless of the arbitrageur’s level of diversification, deters arbitrage activity. Consistent with costly arbitrage, we find that among high short interest stocks a one standard deviation increase in idiosyncratic risk predicts a more than 1% decline in monthly returns. Moreover, idiosyncratic risk does not predict returns across low short interest stocks, and short interest does not predict low returns across low idiosyncratic risk stocks. Our results are robust to commonly used proxies for both transaction costs and short sale constraints.