Asset Growth and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

We test for firm-level asset investment effects in returns by examining the cross-sectional relation between firm asset growth and subsequent stock returns. Asset growth rates are strong predictors of future abnormal returns. Asset growth retains its forecasting ability even on large capitalization stocks. When we compare asset growth rates with the previously documented determinants of the cross-section of returns (i.e., book-to-market ratios, firm capitalization, lagged returns, accruals, and other growth measures), we find that a firm's annual asset growth rate emerges as an economically and statistically significant predictor of the cross-section of U.S. stock returns.     

THE EFFECT OF SIZE,BOOK-TO-MARKET EQUITY,PRIOR RETURNS,AND BETA ON STOCK RETURNS: JANUARY VERSUS THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR

Size and book-to-market equity are shown to transcend beta in explaining stock returns. One possible explanation of the book-to-market equity effect is overreaction. We investigate the effect of size, book-to-market equity, prior returns, and beta on stock returns. We find significant reversals in January consistent with overreaction. We find a strong positive relation between returns and prior returns for February through December. Both patterns are distinct from either a size or book-to-market equity effect. Book-to-market equity is significantly related to returns, with some evidence of a stronger effect in January.     

An Empirical Re-Examination of the Cross-Section of Expected Returns: UK Evidence

This paper is a study of the Fama and French (1992) analysis in the UK context. Consistent with their findings, our results do not support a positive relationship between beta and average monthly returns. We find that book-to-market equity and market leverage are consistently significant in explaining UK average returns. Contrary to the Fama-French evidence, size has an insignificant effect on average returns. A puzzling negative beta-returns relationship is found in some monthly regressions,and results based on annual data reveal a reversal of betas for the smallest-size portfolios. Some possible explanations are offered for these findings.     

Firm Size,Book-to-Market Ratio,and Security Returns: A Holdout Sample of Financial Firms

Fama and French (1992) document a significant relation between firm size, book-to-market ratios, and security returns for nonfinancial firms. Because of their initial interest in leverage as an explanatory variable for security returns, Fama and French exclude from their analysis financial firms, thus creating a natural holdout sample on which to test the robustness of their results. We document that the relation between firm size, book-to-market ratios, and security returns is similar for financial and nonfinancial firms. In addition, we present evidence that survivorship bias does not significantly affect the estimated size or book-to-market premiums in returns. Our results indicate data-snooping and selection biases do not explain the size and book-to-market patterns in returns.     

Book-to-Market Components, Future Security Returns, and Errors in Expected Future Earnings

This study investigates whether the ability of book-to-market to predict returns derives from systematic errors in the market's expectation of future earnings. We extend Beaver and Ryan (1996, 2000) by decomposing book-to-market into a more persistent (bias) component and a delayed recognition (lag) component. We find that both components are related to analyst expectations of future earnings, but the lag component is the dominant factor across all forecast horizons. Similarly, we find that the lag component explains most of the inverse relation between book-to-market and future returns. Given that lag is constructed by regressing book-to-market ratios on lagged price changes, our results are consistent with the lag component capturing systematic stock price reversals. We find that the components have unique relations with subsequent earnings forecast revisions, and controlling for these relations substantially mitigates the components' ability to predict returns. Our component-level analysis provides insight into how expected future earnings, summarized in book-to-market ratios help to explain this market anomaly.     

Default Risk and Equity Returns: Evidence from the Taiwan Equities Market

Studies of risk and return characteristics of different portfolios have recently gained enormous attention. Differing from past studies, this paper uses a compound option model to build the proxy of default risk and evaluate the relationship between default risk effect and equity returns. The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate the relationship among default risk, size, book-to-market, and equity returns, using data drawn from the Taiwan equities market, and to also examine whether size and book-to-market are proxies for default risk. The results show that the effects of size and book-to-market exist in different default portfolios when default risks are controlled. If size or book-to-market is controlled, there are no default effects. In the regression analysis, when default risk is included in Fama and French’s Three Factor Model, it shows that size, book-to-market and default risk have significant influence on equity returns and default risk is a systematic risk. Default risk is also more powerful in explaining returns when the compound option model is adopted for estimating default risks.     

Can stochastic discount factor models explain the cross-section of equity returns?

We propose a multivariate test of the capital asset pricing model (C-CAPM) of the cross-sectional variation in equity returns in which we compare cross-sectional variation in equity returns to the cross-sectional variation in their conditional covariance with stochastic discount factors. We use a multivariate generalized heteroskedasticity in mean model to estimate 25 portfolios that are formed on size and the book-to-market ratio. Each portfolio is allowed to have its own no-arbitrage condition. We find that although the conditional covariances of returns with consumption exhibit negative variation across size, they do not vary across the book-to-market ratio. Thus, C-CAPM can capture the size effect, but not the value effect. The fit is, however, improved by allowing the coefficients on the consumption covariances to be different. The value effect appears to be associated with the book-to-market ratio as well as size. On its own the book-to-market ratio does not generate additional information about average returns to C-CAPM. A possible explanation for these findings is that both small and low book-to-market ratio firms are expected to have higher rates of growth.     

Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns

Firm sizes and book-to-market ratios are both highly correlated with the average returns of common stocks. Fama and French (1993) argue that the association between these characteristics and returns arise because the characteristics are proxies for nondiversifiable factor risk. In contrast, the evidence in this article indicates that the return premia on small capitalization and high book-to-market stocks does not arise because of the comovements of these stocks with pervasive factors. It is the characteristics rather than the covariance structure of returns that appear to explain the cross-sectional variation in stock returns.     

Relations Between Stock Returns and Fundamental Variables: Evidence from a Segmented Market

This study examines relations between stock returns and potential explanatory factors in Korea, an important and segmented emerging market. Our results show that Korean stock returns in general and returns on stocks listed in Section 1 in particular are significantly positively related to book-to-market, sales-price, and debt-equity ratios, but not significantly related to market value of equity. Returns on stocks listed in Section 2 are, however, negatively related to market value of equity and not significantly related to the other three variables. Among the variables investigated by us, book-to-market ratio has the greatest explanatory power for stock returns and it indicates superior returns for value stocks. Our findings strengthen the international evidence of the role of book-to-market ratio in explaining stock returns by demonstrating its significance even in the segmented Korean market.     

On the explanatory power of firm-specific variables in cross-sections of expected returns

This paper pertains to the controversy surrounding the explanatory power of certain firm-specific variables such as size and the book-to-market ratio in cross-sections of average stock returns. To investigate whether these firm-specific variables capture the sensitivity of returns to unobserved systematic risk, two sets of principal component factors are used. The first set is constructed from individual stock returns and the second set is from size- and book-to-market-sorted portfolio returns. The evidence from the first set of factors shows that size and the book-to-market ratio have little to do with factor betas. The evidence from the second set of factors shows that the forces underlying size and the book-to-market ratio are indeed systematic risks, although they explain very little return variation at the firm level, and that the betas of size- and book-to-market-sorted portfolio returns with respect to the corresponding systematic factors do explain the size and book-to-market effects.     

The stocks at stake: Return and risk in socially responsible investment

We relate US portfolio returns, book-to-market values and excess stock returns to different dimensions of socially responsible performance. We find that socially responsible investing (SRI) impacts on stock returns by lowering the book-to-market ratio and not by generating positive alphas. Our result is consistent with the theoretical work suggesting that SRI is reflected in demand differences between SRI and non-SRI stock. It also explains why so few studies are able to establish a link between alpha’s and SRI.     

Risk,Mispricing, and Value Investing

We evaluate the stock return performance of a modified version of the book-to-market strategy and its implications for market efficiency. If the previously documented superior stock return of the book-to-market strategy represents mispricing, its performance should be improved by excluding fairly valued firms with extreme book-to-market ratios. To attain this, we classify stocks as value or glamour on book-to-market ratios and accounting accruals jointly. This joint classification is likely to exclude stocks with extreme book-to-market ratios due to mismeasured accounting book values reflecting limitations underlying the accounting system. Using both 12-month buy-and-hold returns and earnings announcement returns, our results show that this joint classification generates substantially higher portfolio returns in the post-portfolio-formation year than the book-to-market classification alone with no evidence of increased risk. In addition, this superior stock return performance is more pronounced among firms held primarily by small (unsophisticated) investors and followed less closely by market participants (stock price <$10). Finally, and most importantly, financial analysts are overly optimistic (pessimistic) about earnings of glamour (value) stock, and for a subset of firms identified as overvalued by our strategy, the earnings announcement raw return, as well as abnormal return, is negative. These last results are particularly important because it is hard to envision a model consistent with rational investors holding risky stocks with predictable negative raw returns for a long period of time rather than holding fT-bills and with financial analysts systematically overestimating the earnings of these stocks while underestimating earnings of stocks that outperform the stock market.     

The relationship between size,book-to-market equity ratio,earnings–price ratio,and return for the Hong Kong stock market

In this paper, we investigate the relation between stock returns and β, size (ME), leverage, book-to-market equity ratio, and earnings–price ratio (E/P) in Hong Kong stock market using the Fama and French (FF) [J. Finance 47 (1992) 427] approach. FF find that two variables, size and book-to-market equity, combine to capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns associated with β, size, leverage, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios. In this paper, similar to previous studies in Hong Kong and US stock markets, we find that β is unable to explain the average monthly returns on stocks continuously listed in Hong Kong Stock Exchange for the period July 1984–June 1997. But three of the variables, size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios, seem able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns over the period. The other two variables, book leverage and market, are also able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns. But their effects seem to be dominated by size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios, and considered to be redundant in explaining average returns when size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios are also considered. The results are consistent across subperiods, across months, and across size groups. These suggest that the results are not driven by extreme observations or abnormal return behavior in some of the months or by size groups.     

Size,value and momentum in stock returns: evidence from India

This paper examines the effects of size, value and momentum on the cross-sectional relation between expected returns and risk in the Indian stock market. We find that the conditional Carhart four-factor model empirically describes the variation of cross-section of return better than the unconditional model. When size, book-to-market and momentum effects are controlled in the conditional model, the positive relation of market beta, book-to-market and momentum with expected returns remains economically and statistically significant. However, this evidence is found to be subject to characteristics of test portfolios. The expected returns are sensitive to changes in predictive macroeconomic variables.     

Tangible and intangible information in emerging markets

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - High book-to-market stocks earn higher average returns than low book-to-market stocks. This result has been verified using stock returns from the US,...     

Monetary Policy and the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns

Ample evidence shows that size and book-to-market equity explain significant cross-sectional variation in stock returns, whereas beta explains little or none of the variation. Recent studies also demonstrate that proxies for monetary stringency increase the explained variation in stock returns. We reexamine a three-factor model that includes beta, size, and book-to-market equity, while allowing monetary conditions to influence the relations between these risk factors and average stock returns. We find that ex-ante proxies for monetary stringency significantly influence the relations between stock returns and all three risk factors. Additionally, all three variables are found to contribute significantly to explaining cross-sectional returns in a three-factor model that includes the monetary sector.     

Cross-sectional determinants of New Zealand share market returns

We present evidence of the cross-sectional relation between security returns, beta, firm size and book-to-market ratio over the period 1971 to 1993 on the New Zealand sharemarket. Our results suggest that the NZSE-40 market index is not a mean-variance efficient market proxy—the betas calculated with respect to it being of little use for explaining expected returns cross-sectionally. Also, there is a significant positive relation between book-to-market ratio and average return.     

Why does book-to-market value of equity forecast cross-section stock returns?

In this paper, we derive a model of book-to-market value of equity based on the present value model and estimate it using panel data on individual stocks. We explicitly include in the model all the determinants of book-to-market except the firm-specific discount rate, which we capture using fixed individual effects in the panel data model. The model is particularly successful, explaining nearly 90% of the time series and cross-section variation in the ratio of book-to-market value of equity. Moreover, the estimated firm-specific fixed effects are more successful than the most recent book-to-market value of equity in forecasting subsequent returns. This is consistent with an efficient market in which book-to-market is a proxy for risk.     

Earnings,retained earnings,and book-to-market in the cross section of expected returns

Book value of equity consists of two economically different components: retained earnings and contributed capital. We predict that book-to-market strategies work because the retained earnings component of the book value of equity includes the accumulation and, hence, the averaging of past earnings. Retained earnings-to-market predicts the cross section of average returns in U.S. and international data and subsumes book-to-market. Contributed capital-to-market has no predictive power. We show that retained earnings-to-market, and, by extension, book-to-market, predicts returns because it is a good proxy for underlying earnings yield (Ball, 1978; Berk, 1995) and not because book value represents intrinsic value.     

An Analysis of Contrarian Investment Strategies in the UK

The performance of contrarian, or value strategies – those that invest in stocks that have low market value relative to a measure of their fundamentals – continues to attract attention from researchers and practitioners alike. While there is much extant evidence on the profitability of value strategies, however, most of this evidence pertains to the US. In this paper, we provide a detailed characterisation of value strategies using data on UK stocks for the period 1975 to 1998. We first undertake simple one-way and two-way classifications of stocks in which value is defined using both past performance and expected future performance. Using sales growth as a proxy for past performance and book-to-market, earnings yield and cash flow yield as measures of expected future performance, we find that that stocks that have both poor past performance and low expected future performance have significantly higher returns than those that have either good past performance or good expected future performance. Allowing for size effects in returns reduces the value premium but it nevertheless remains significant. We go on to explore whether the profitability of value strategies in the UK can be explained using the three factor model of Fama and French (1996). Broadly consistent with the results for the US, we find that using the one-way classification the excess returns to almost all value strategies can be explained by their loading on the market, book-to-market and size factors. However, in contrast with the US, using the two-way classification there are excess returns to value strategies based on book-to-market and sales growth, even after controlling for their loading on the market, book-to-market and size factors.