Options Trading and the CAPM

This article studies equilibrium asset pricing when agents facenonnegative wealth constraints. In the presence of these constraintsit is shown that options on the market portfolio are nonredundantsecurities and the economy's pricing kernel is a function ofboth the market portfolio and the nonredundant options. Thisimplies that the options should be useful for explaining riskyasset returns. To test the theory, a model is derived in whichthe expected excess return on any risky asset is linearly related(via a collection of betas) to the expected excess return onthe market portfolio and to the expected excess returns on thenonredundant options. The empirical results indicate that thereturns on traded index options are relevant for explainingthe returns on risky asset portfolios.     

Asset Pricing and Expected Inflation

This paper provides an equilibrium model in which expected real returns on common stocks are negatively related to expected inflation and money growth. It is shown that the fall in real wealth associated with an increase in expected inflation decreases the real rate of interest and the expected real rate of return of the market portfolio. The expected real rate of return of the market portfolio falls less, for a given increase in expected inflation, when the increase in expected inflation is caused by an increase in money growth rather than by a worsening of the investment opportunity set. The model has empirical implications for the effect of a change in expected inflation on the cross-sectional distribution of asset returns and can help to understand why assets whose return covaries positively with expected inflation may have lower expected returns. The model also agrees with explanations advanced by Fama [5] and Geske and Roll [10] for the negative relation between stock returns and inflation.     

Time-varying risk premia and the cost of capital: An alternative implication of the Q theory of investment

Evidence suggests that expected excess stock market returns vary over time, and that this variation is much larger than that of expected real interest rates. It follows that a large fraction of the movement in the cost of capital in standard investment models must be attributable to movements in equity risk-premia. In this paper we emphasize that such movements in equity risk premia should have implications not merely for investment today, but also for future investment over long horizons. In this case, predictive variables for excess stock returns over long-horizons are also likely to forecast long-horizon fluctuations in the growth of marginal Q, and therefore investment. We test this implication directly by performing long-horizon forecasting regressions of aggregate investment growth using a variety of predictive variables shown elsewhere to have forecasting power for excess stock market returns.     

Explaining the accrual anomaly by market expectations of future returns and earnings

This study examines the accrual anomaly under the framework of the Campbell [Campbell, J.Y. (1991). A variance decomposition for stock returns. Economic Journal 101 (405), 157-179.] model. The Campbell (1991) model shows that realized asset returns are a joint function of 1) expected returns, 2) revisions in market expected future returns (i.e., return news), and 3) revisions in market expected future cash flows (i.e., cash flow news). The current study adopts the Easton [Easton, P. (2004). PE ratios, PEG ratios, and estimating the implied expected rate of return on equity capital. The Accounting Review 79 (1), 73-96.] model to estimate proxies for expected returns, return news, and cash flow news. The results show that firms with low accruals have lower expected returns than firms with high accruals, which is contradictory to prior research that argues that firms with low accruals are more risky. However, investors underestimate (overestimate) future earnings growth, a proxy for cash flow growth, for low (high) accrual firms. Further analysis demonstrates that earnings news (proxy for cash flow news) plays a major role in explaining abnormal returns associated with the accrual anomaly.     

Future Realized Return,Firm‐specific Risk and the Implied Expected Return

In this paper, I propose a novel approach to derive a firm‐specific measure of expected return. It builds on recent accounting‐based valuation models developed by Clubb (2013) and Ashton and Wang (2013). The measure is intrinsically linked to commonly used financial ratios, including book‐to‐market, (forward) earnings yield, and dividend‐to‐price, as well as growth and past returns. The empirical evidence shows that it is significantly positively associated with future realized stock returns and also significantly correlated with commonly used risk characteristics in a theoretically predictable manner. The results are likely to be of interest to practitioners and managers in making capital allocation decisions and to academics in need of proxies for firms’ discount rates and expected returns.     

Asset pricing,time-varying risk premia and interest rate risk

This paper investigates the role of interest rate risk in explaining security price changes. We develop and test a two-factor linear beta pricing model of security returns in which the factors are the excess returns on the long-term, riskless bond and the equal-weighted equity market index. We find that time-variation in the interest rate and market risk premia influence expected security returns. Furthermore, conditional interest rate volatility affects security returns, particularly during periods of substantial interest rate movements.     

Idiosyncratic risk and the cross-section of expected stock returns

Theories such as Merton [1987. A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance 42, 483–510] predict a positive relation between idiosyncratic risk and expected return when investors do not diversify their portfolio. Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang [2006. The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. Journal of Finance 61, 259–299], however, find that monthly stock returns are negatively related to the one-month lagged idiosyncratic volatilities. I show that idiosyncratic volatilities are time-varying and thus, their findings should not be used to imply the relation between idiosyncratic risk and expected return. Using the exponential GARCH models to estimate expected idiosyncratic volatilities, I find a significantly positive relation between the estimated conditional idiosyncratic volatilities and expected returns. Further evidence suggests that Ang et al.'s findings are largely explained by the return reversal of a subset of small stocks with high idiosyncratic volatilities.     

News and the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns

We study the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns using an inter-temporal CAPM (ICAPM) with three-factors: innovations in future excess bond returns, future real interest rates and future expected inflation. Our test assets are a broad range of corporate bond market index portfolios. We find that two factors – innovations about future inflation and innovations about future real interest rates – explain the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns in our sample. Our model provides an alternative to the ad hoc risk factor models used, for example, in evaluating the performance of bond mutual funds.     

ESTIMATING EXPECTED EXCESS RETURNS USING HISTORICAL AND OPTION‐IMPLIED VOLATILITY

We test the relation between expected and realized excess returns for the S&P 500 index from January 1994 through December 2003 using the proportional reward‐to‐risk measure to estimate expected returns. When risk is measured by historical volatility, we find no relation between expected and realized excess returns. In contrast, when risk is measured by option‐implied volatility, we find a positive and significant relation between expected and realized excess returns in the 1994–1998 subperiod. In the 1999–2003 subperiod, the option‐implied volatility risk measure yields a positive, but statistically insignificant, risk‐return relation. We attribute this performance difference to the fact that, in the 1994–1998 subperiod, return volatility was lower and the average return was much higher than in the 1999–2003 subperiod, thereby increasing the signal‐to‐noise ratio in the latter subperiod.     

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.     

Corporate governance and stock returns in Asia

Despite years of study, the impact of firm-level governance on stock returns is not clear, especially in non-U.S. markets. We investigate the returns of governance-based trading strategies in Asia, using bias-free return data and CLSA governance ratings. We argue that poor governance should be associated with higher market risk. We find that a portfolio of poorly governed firms has a higher market beta, higher expected return and higher realized return, compared with a good governance portfolio. In contrast to some earlier studies, we find no abnormal returns after adjusting for risk and country effects. Only investors who can predict in advance which firms will improve their governance can earn abnormal returns.     

Equity Risk Premium

Abstract

The equity risk premium (ERP) is an essential building block of the market value of risk. In theory, the collective action of all investors results in an equilibrium expectation for the return on the market portfolio excess of the risk-free return, the ERP. The ability of the valuation actuary to choose a sensible value for the ERP, whether as a required input to capital asset pricing model valuation, or any of its descendants, is as important as choosing risk-free rates and risk relatives (betas) to the ERP for the asset at hand.

The historical realized ERP for the stock market appears to be at odds with pricing theory parameters for risk aversion. Since 1985, there has been a constant stream of research, each of which reviews theories of estimating market returns, examines historical data periods, or both. Those ERP value estimates vary widely from about ?1% to about 9%, based on a geometric or arithmetic averaging, short or long horizons, short- or long-run expectations, unconditional or conditional distributions, domestic or international data, data periods, and real or nominal returns.

This paper examines the principal strains of the recent research on the ERP and catalogues the empirical values of the ERP implied by that research. In addition, the paper supplies several time series analyses of the standard Ibbotson Associates 1926–2002 ERP data using short Treasuries for the risk-free rate. Recommendations for ERP values to use in common actuarial valuation problems also are offered.     

The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market

The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidencies: 9 percent for the value‐weighted and 16 percent for the equal‐weighted portfolio. The difference comes from higher real stock returns and lower real interest rates, is statistically significant, and is robust in subsamples. The difference in returns is not explained by business‐cycle variables related to expected returns, and is not concentrated around election dates. There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across presidencies that could justify a risk premium. The difference in returns through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.     

The comovement of US and German bond markets

We use a vector-autoregression, with parameter estimates corrected for small-sample bias, to decompose US and German unexpected bond returns into three ‘news’ components: news about future inflation, news about future real interest rates, and news about future excess bond returns (term premia). We then cross-country correlate these news components to see which component is responsible for the high degree of comovement of US and German bond markets. For the period 1975-2003 we find that inflation news is the main driving force behind this comovement. When news is coming to the US market that future US inflation will increase, there is a tendency that German inflation will also increase. This is regarded bad news for the bond market in both countries whereby bond prices are bid down leading to immediate negative return innovations and changing expectations of future excess bond returns. Thus, comovement in expected future inflation is the main reason for bond market comovement.     

The empirical relationship between risk and return: evidence from the UK stock market

Previous studies reach no consensus on the relationship between risk and return using data from one market. We argue that the world market factor should not be ignored in assessing the risk-return relationship in a partially integrated market. Applying a bivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity in mean (GARCH-M) model to the weekly stock index returns from the UK and the world market, we document a significant positive relationship between stock returns and the variance of returns in the UK stock market after controlling for the covariance of the UK and the world market return. In contrast, conventional univariate GARCH-M models typically fail to detect this relationship. Nonnested hypothesis tests supplemented with other commonly used model selection criteria unambiguously demonstrate that our bivariate GARCH-M model is more likely to be the true model for UK stock market returns than univariate GARCH-M models. Our results have implications for empirical assessments of the risk-return relationship, expected return estimation, and international diversification.     

The Cost of Capital for Alternative Investments

Traditional risk factor models indicate that hedge funds capture pre‐fee alphas of 6% to 10% per annum over the period from 1996 to 2012. At the same time, the hedge fund return series is not reliably distinguishable from the returns of mechanical S&P 500 put‐writing strategies. We show that the high excess returns to hedge funds and put‐writing are consistent with an equilibrium in which a small subset of investors specialize in bearing downside market risks. Required rates of return in such an equilibrium can dramatically exceed those suggested by traditional models, affecting inference about the attractiveness of these investments.     

The relation between stock returns and short-term interest rates

This study examines the relation between the expected returns on common stocks and short-term interest rates. Using a two-factor model of stock returns, we show that the expected returns on common stocks are systematically related to the market risk and the interest-rate risk, which are estimated as the sensitivity of common-stock excess returns to the excess return on the equally weighted market index and to the federal fund premium, respectively. We find that the interest-rate risk for small firms is a significant source of investors' portfolio risk, but is not properly reflected in the single-factor market risk. We also find that the interest-rate risk for large firms is “negative” in the sense that the market risk estimated from the single-factor model overstates the true risk of large firms. An application of the Fama-MacBeth methodology indicates that the interest-rate risk premium as well as the market's risk premium are significant, implying that both the market risk and the interest-rate risk are priced. We show that the interest-rate risk premium explains a significant portion of the difference in expected returns between the top quintile and the bottom quintile of the NYSE and AMEX firms. We also show that the turn-of-the-year seasonal is observed for the interest-rate risk premium; however, the risk premium for the rest of the year is still significant, although small in mangitude.     

Is beta still alive? Conclusive evidence from the Swiss stock market

Recent evidence from Fama and French (1992, 1996) and others shows that betas and returns are not related empirically. They interpret this as evidence against the validity of the capital asset pricing model and conclude that the beta is not a good measure of risk. This paper claims that usual tests do not leave much opportunity for beta to appear as a useful variable capable of explaining returns, because tests are often performed in periods where the average realized market excess return is not significantly different from zero. In order to assess the usefulness of beta, an alternative approach that dissociates results obtained in periods where the realized market excess is positive from those where it is negative is proposed. These new tests are then applied to a representative sample of the Swiss stock market over the period 1983–1991. The different results unambiguously support the fact that beta is a good measure of risk, because beta is strongly related to the cross-section of realized returns. These results also confirm that there are no arbitrage opportunities on this market.     

Currency Returns, Intrinsic Value, and Institutional-Investor Flows

We decompose currency returns into (permanent) intrinsic‐value shocks and (transitory) expected‐return shocks. We explore interactions between these shocks, currency returns, and institutional‐investor currency flows. Intrinsic‐value shocks are: dwarfed by expected‐return shocks (yet currency returns overreact to them); unrelated to flows (although expected‐return shocks correlate with flows); and related positively to forecasted cumulated‐interest differentials. These results suggest flows are related to short‐term currency returns, while fundamentals better explain long‐term returns and values. They also rationalize the long‐observed poor performance of exchange‐rate models: by ignoring the distinction between permanent and transitory exchange‐rate changes, prior tests obscure the connection between currencies and fundamentals.     

Real Stock Returns and Inflation

This paper develops the relation between the real rate of return on the stock market and changes in the price level using a multiperiod economy with production. The observed relation between real ex post stock returns and inflation is shown to be consistent with equilibrium in an economy with rational investors. The relation between expected real returns and expected inflation is shown to depend on the form of the economy's production function and on the form of investor preferences. When the production function exhibits stochastic constant returns to scale, the model explains the negative relation between expected real returns and expected inflation which has frequently been observed in empirical studies.