Extreme downside risk and expected stock returns

We propose a measure for extreme downside risk (EDR) to investigate whether bearing such a risk is rewarded by higher expected stock returns. By constructing an EDR proxy with the left tail index in the classical generalized extreme value distribution, we document a significantly positive EDR premium in cross-section of stock returns even after controlling for market, size, value, momentum, and liquidity effects. The EDR premium is more prominent among glamor stocks and when high market returns are expected. High-EDR stocks are generally characterized by high idiosyncratic risk, large downside beta, lower coskewness and cokurtosis, and high bankruptcy risk. The EDR premium persists after these characteristics are controlled for. Although Value at Risk (VaR) plays a significant role in explaining the EDR premium, it cannot completely subsume the EDR effect.     

Conditional extreme risk,black swan hedging,and asset prices

Motivated by the asset pricing theory with safety-first preference, we introduce and operationalize a conditional extreme risk (CER) measure to describe expected stock performance conditional on a small-probability market downturn (black swan). We document a significant CER premium in the cross-section of expected returns. We also demonstrate that CER explains the premia to downside beta, coskewness, and cokurtosis. CER provides distinct information regarding black swan hedging that cannot be captured by co-crash-based tail dependence measures. As we find that the pricing effect is stronger among black swan hedging stocks, this distinction helps explain the absence of premium to tail dependence.     

Downside Risk

Economists have long recognized that investors care differentlyabout downside losses versus upside gains. Agents who placegreater weight on downside risk demand additional compensationfor holding stocks with high sensitivities to downside marketmovements. We show that the cross section of stock returns reflectsa downside risk premium of approximately 6% per annum. Stocksthat covary strongly with the market during market declineshave high average returns. The reward for beasring downsiderisk is not simply compensation for regular market beta, noris it explained by coskewness or liquidity risk, or by size,value, and momentum characteristics. (JEL C12, C15, C32, G12)     

Habit formation,the cross section of stock returns and the cash-flow risk puzzle

Non-linear external habit persistence models, which feature prominently in the recent “equity premium” asset pricing and macroeconomics literature, generate counterfactual predictions in the cross-section of stock returns. In particular, we show that in the absence of cross-sectional heterogeneity in firms’ cash-flow risk, these models produce a “growth premium,” that is, stocks with high price-to-fundamental ratios command a higher premium than stocks with low price-to-fundamental ratios. This implication is at odds with the well-established empirical observation of a “value premium” in the cross-section of stock returns. Substantial heterogeneity in firms’ cash-flow risk yields both a value premium as well as most of the stylized facts about the cross-section of stock returns, but it generates a “cash-flow risk puzzle”: Quantitatively, value stocks have to have “too much” cash-flow risk compared to the data to generate empirically plausible value premiums.     

Dispersion of beliefs,ambiguity, and the cross-section of stock returns

We examine whether ambiguity is priced in the cross-section of expected stock returns. Using the cross-sectional dispersion in real-time forecasts of real GDP growth as a measure for ambiguity, we find that high ambiguity beta stocks earn lower future returns relative to low ambiguity beta stocks. This negative predictive relation between the ambiguity beta and future returns is consistent with theory, which predicts the marginal utility of consumption to rise when ambiguity is high. We further show that the ambiguity premium remains significant after controlling for exposures to expected real GDP growth, VIX, and financial market dislocations index.     

The cost of equity of internet stocks: a downside risk approach

Beta as a measure of risk has been under fire for many years. Although practitioners still widely use the CAPM to estimate the cost of equity of companies, they are aware of its problems and are looking for alternatives. A possible alternative is to estimate the cost of equity based on the semideviation, a well-known and intuitively plausible measure of downside risk. Complementing evidence reported elsewhere about the ability of the semideviation to explain the cross-section of returns in emerging markets and that of industries in emerging markets, this article reports results showing that the semideviation also explains the cross-section of Internet stock returns.     

Downside beta and the cross section of equity returns: A decade later

This study reexamines the relation between downside beta and equity returns in the United States. First, we replicate the 2006 work of Ang, Chen, and Xing who find a positive relation between downside beta and future equity returns for equal‐weighted portfolios of NYSE stocks. We show that this relation doesn't hold after using value‐weighted returns or controlling for various return determinants. We also extend the original sample, add AMEX/NASDAQ stocks or utilize alternative downside beta measures and still find no downside risk premium. We focus on factor analysis results, persistence of downside beta, and various subsamples to understand the economic reasons behind the findings.     

Conditional interest rate risk and the cross‐section of excess stock returns

Differences in excess stock returns can be rationalized by their sensitivities to conditional interest rate risk. Value stocks are particularly sensitive to upside movements in interest rate growth, while growth stocks react strongly to downside movements in interest rate growth. Consistent with the basic asset pricing theory, the upside interest rate risk commands a negative premium which is higher than the premium associated with the downside interest rate risk. Upside beta pertains its explanatory power after controlling for exposure to regular unconditional interest rate and various sources of financial and conditional macroeconomic risk.     

Technology prospects and the cross-section of stock returns

In an economy with time-varying investment opportunities, the changes in technology prospects affect aggregate consumption and individual firm's future dividends, and lead to systematic technology risk. We construct a technology factor to track the changes in technology prospects measured by U.S. patent shocks, and find that this factor explains the growth of aggregate consumption, helps to price important stock portfolios, and carries significant risk premium. Our empirical results suggest the existence of technology risk in the cross-section of stock returns.     

Asymmetric Volatility,Skewness, and Downside Risk in Different Asset Classes: Evidence from Futures Markets

This study examines the cross‐sectional variation of futures returns from different asset classes. The monthly returns are positively correlated with downside risk and negatively correlated with coskewness. The asymmetric volatility effect generates negatively skewed returns. Assets with high coskewness and low downside betas provide hedges against market downside risk and offer low returns. The high returns offered by assets with low coskewness and high downside betas are a risk premium for bearing downside risk. The asset pricing model that incorporates downside risk partially explains the futures returns. The results indicate a unified risk perspective to jointly price different asset classes.     

Value-at-risk and the cross section of emerging market hedge fund returns

This paper examines the cross-sectional relationship between downside risk (Value at Risk) and expected returns in a sample of 1370 emerging market hedge funds (EMHF). We find that downside risk significantly drives expected returns for these funds, particularly before the global financial crisis, commanding an annual risk premium of over 12%. While EMHF differ from their advanced market counterparts in risk/return patterns, we show that the global financial crisis of 2008 has caused a structural shift in that pattern. Finally, we show that the risk premium associated with downside risk is predictable by the global financial cycle, even after we control for emerging market systematic risk factors.     

Common risk factors in the cross-section of corporate bond returns

We investigate the cross-sectional determinants of corporate bond returns and find that downside risk is the strongest predictor of future bond returns. We also introduce common risk factors based on the prevalent risk characteristics of corporate bonds—downside risk, credit risk, and liquidity risk—and find that these novel bond factors have economically and statistically significant risk premiums that cannot be explained by long-established stock and bond market factors. We show that the newly proposed risk factors outperform all other models considered in the literature in explaining the returns of the industry- and size/maturity-sorted portfolios of corporate bonds.     

Accrual mispricing,value-at-risk,and expected stock returns

We investigate the extent to which a parsimonious measure of maximum likely loss that captures the tail risk of returns—known as value-at-risk (VaR)—explains the relationship between accruals and the cross-sectional dispersion of expected stock returns. We construct portfolios based on Sloan’s (Account Rev 71(3):289–315, 1996) total accruals (TA) measure and individual asset-level VaR, which reflects the dynamic behavior of the asset distribution. We document that VaR is in congruence with portfolio-level accruals and that there is a significant positive relationship between VaR and the cross-section of portfolio returns. Allowing a double-sort involving VaR and TA further suggests that the spread between low- and high-TA portfolios is significantly attenuated after controlling for VaR. We also conduct a firm-level cross-sectional regression analysis and demonstrate that the TA- and VaR-based characteristics—but not the factor-mimicking portfolios—are compensated with higher expected returns, and that VaR neither subsumes nor is subsumed by TA. Finally, our cross-sectional decomposition analysis suggests that the firm-level VaR captures at least 7% of the accrual premium even in the presence of size and book-to-market. These findings lend support for the mispricing explanation of the accrual anomaly.

     

The Price of Correlation Risk: Evidence from Equity Options

We study whether exposure to marketwide correlation shocks affects expected option returns, using data on S&P100 index options, options on all components, and stock returns. We find evidence of priced correlation risk based on prices of index and individual variance risk. A trading strategy exploiting priced correlation risk generates a high alpha and is attractive for CRRA investors without frictions. Correlation risk exposure explains the cross-section of index and individual option returns well. The correlation risk premium cannot be exploited with realistic trading frictions, providing a limits-to-arbitrage interpretation of our finding of a high price of correlation risk.     

Accruals quality,stock returns and asset pricing: Evidence from the UK

The extent to which accruals quality (AQ) is relevant for asset pricing has been debated widely. Prior research in this area has focused almost exclusively on the US. Using UK data, we investigate whether AQ portfolios exhibit evidence of significant mispricing, and whether an AQ factor is useful in explaining the portfolios' returns. We also investigate whether AQ is a priced risk factor. Using a two stage cross-sectional regression, we show that an AQ measure explains the cross-section of stock returns. AQ also explains the time-series variation in returns for two sets of portfolios: 16 size-BM portfolios, and 20 industry portfolios. Consistent with some recent US evidence, however, we find no evidence that AQ is a priced risk factor for UK stocks.     

Downside risk of international stock returns

This paper investigates the downside risk exposure of international stock returns in 14 major industrialized economies around the world. For the period 1975–2010, we find that differences in returns on value and growth portfolios can be rationalized by assets’ reagibilities to market’s downside shocks. International value stocks are particularly sensitive to market’s permanent downside shocks, while international growth stocks are particularly sensitive to market’s temporary downside shocks. In line with recent evidence for the US, risk associated with unfavorable changes in market’s cash-flow innovations carries a premium which is pervasive and statistically significant.     

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.     

Rewards for downside risk in Asian markets

Distributional properties of emerging market returns may impact on investor ability and willingness to diversify. Investors may also place greater weighting on downside losses, compared to upside gains. Using individual equities in a range of emerging Asian markets, we investigate the potential contribution of downside risk measures to explain asset pricing in these markets. As realized returns are used as a proxy for expected returns, we separately examine conditional returns in upturn and downturn periods, in order to successfully identify risk and return relationships. Results indicate that co-skewness and downside beta are priced by investors. Further testing confirms a separate premium for each measure, confirming that they capture different aspects of downside risk. Robustness tests indicate that, when combined with other risk measures, both retain their explanatory power. Tests also indicate that co-skewness may be the more robust measure.     

How is illiquidity priced in the Chinese stock market?

This study investigates the liquidity premium in the Chinese stock market. We found that the expected stock returns increase monotonically with the quintile sort on characteristic liquidity with descending patterns. The characteristic liquidity premium ranges from 0.82% to 1.28% per month, which is much higher than that of their US counterparts. Moreover, our multivariate decomposition approach highlights that characteristic illiquidity premiums can be explained mainly by size, idiosyncratic volatility and momentum. The net systematic liquidity premium reaches 0.84% per month, driven mainly by commonality beta. The finding shows that a liquidity-based strategy forecasts cross-section and time-series expected returns.     

Is co-skewness a better measure of risk in the downside than downside beta?: Evidence in emerging market data

We define three measure of systematic co-skewness risk in a downside framework by extending three downside beta risk measures in the literature. In pricing models in a downside framework it may be sufficient to include a risk measure that accounts for co-semi-variance or co-semi-skewness and not both. Downside risk is appropriate when returns distribution is skewed—a common feature in emerging markets. A cross-sectional analysis provides evidence that downside co-skewness is a better explanatory variable of emerging market monthly returns than downside beta. Our conclusions remain largely unchanged when the analysis is subjected to various robustness checks.