Do idiosyncratic jumps matter?

We show that idiosyncratic jumps are a key determinant of mean stock returns from both an ex post and ex ante perspective. Ex post, the entire annual average return of a typical stock accrues on the four days on which its price jumps. Ex ante, idiosyncratic jump risk earns a premium: a value-weighted weekly long-short portfolio that buys (sells) stocks with high (low) predicted jump probabilities earns annualized mean returns of 9.4% and four-factor alphas of 8.1%. This strategy’s returns are larger when there are greater limits to arbitrage. These results are consistent with investor aversion to idiosyncratic jump risk.     

Expected returns and expected dividend growth

We investigate a consumption-based present-value relation that is a function of future dividend growth and find that changing forecasts of dividend growth are an important feature of the post-war U.S. stock market, despite the failure of the dividend–price ratio to uncover such variation. In addition, dividend forecasts are found to covary with changing forecasts of excess stock returns over business cycle frequencies. This covariation is important because positively correlated fluctuations in expected dividend growth and expected returns have offsetting effects on the log dividend–price ratio. The market risk premium and expected dividend growth thus vary considerably more than is apparent using the log divided–price ratio alone as a predictive variable.     

Dividend policy,signaling, and discounts on closed-end funds

We test the predictions of dividend signaling models using closed-end equity funds that adopt explicit policies committing them to pay minimum dividend yields. These policies represent deliberate attempts to reduce share price undervaluation relative to NAV. Funds that adopt minimum dividend policies experience reductions in their share price discounts, trade at smaller discounts than other funds, earn greater excess returns following policy adoption, and their managers survive longer than other managers do. The results are broadly consistent with the predictions of dividend signaling models, and suggest that high quality closed-end funds can reduce undervaluation via dividend policy.     

A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model

Using a new measure of liquidity, this paper documents a significant liquidity premium robust to the CAPM and the Fama–French three-factor model and shows that liquidity is an important source of priced risk. A two-factor (market and liquidity) model well explains the cross-section of stock returns, describing the liquidity premium, subsuming documented anomalies associated with size, long-term contrarian investment, and fundamental (cashflow, earnings, and dividend) to price ratios. In particular, the two-factor model accounts for the book-to-market effect, which the Fama–French three-factor model fails to explain.     

Price disparity between Chinese A- and H-shares: Dividends,currency values,and the interest rate differential

We provide new evidence on price disparity between Chinese A- and H-shares for cross-listed companies in the period 2006–2019. Our panel-data results show that the A-share price premium is negatively related to cash dividends and expected relative currency values between mainland China and Hong Kong. International investors in H-shares prefer companies that pay dividends regularly, and they buy when the Chinese currency is expected to appreciate. A discounted dividend theoretical model explains these results.     

The expected value premium

Fama and French [2002. The equity premium. Journal of Finance 57, 637–659] estimate the equity premium using dividend growth rates to measure expected rates of capital gain. We apply their method to study the value premium. From 1945 to 2005, the expected value premium is on average 6.1% per annum, consisting of an expected dividend growth component of 4.4% and an expected dividend price ratio component of 1.7%. Unlike the equity premium, the value premium has been largely stable over the last half century.     

Dividend Consistency: Rewards,Learning, and Expectations

The fact that many companies have a long track record of consistent dividend increases suggests that managers believe there is some benefit to establishing and maintaining such a pattern. Many companies, for example, follow a perennial policy of increasing the dividend in a particular quarter, maintaining it at the same level for the next three quarters, and then increasing it in the same quarter of the following year. But does the capital market reward companies for maintaining a consistent dividend policy? Do companies with a history of repeated dividend increases earn long‐term positive abnormal returns; and if so, how long do the returns persist? The authors find that companies earned significantly positive abnormal returns following each of the first five annual dividend increases, over and above the positive announcement‐month returns. Nevertheless, the reward decreases as the track record of dividend increases becomes longer. After the first dividend increase, companies enjoy significantly positive returns for the next two years. Companies that increase the dividend in the same quarter of the following year also enjoy significant positive returns, but returns that are smaller (and less statistically significant) than in the case of first‐time dividend increases. And as the dividend‐increase track record further lengthens, the size and statistical significance of the abnormal returns continues to shrink; and after the sixth dividend increase, the abnormal returns in the next twelve months are statistically indistinguishable from zero. In sum, although there is some support for maintaining a consistent dividend policy, the market response diminishes over time, and investors do not earn abnormal returns by buying stocks whose annual dividend has already been increased six or more times.     

Rare disaster risk and the expected equity risk premium

Consistent with the predictions of rare disaster models, we find that a proxy for the time‐varying probability of rare disasters helps to explain fluctuations in expectations of the equity risk premium. Our proxy for disaster risk is a recently developed measure of global political instability, and the expected market risk premium is from Value Line analysts' expected stock returns. Consistent with long‐run risk models, uncertainty about expected GDP growth and expected consumption growth is also significantly positively related to the expected market risk premium. We obtain similar results when we use the earnings–price ratio and the dividend–price ratio as proxies for the expected market risk premium.     

Risk,uncertainty, and asset prices

We identify the relative importance of changes in the conditional variance of fundamentals (which we call “uncertainty”) and changes in risk aversion in the determination of the term structure, equity prices, and risk premiums. Theoretically, we introduce persistent time-varying uncertainty about the fundamentals in an external habit model. The model matches the dynamics of dividend and consumption growth, including their volatility dynamics and many salient asset market phenomena. While the variation in price–dividend ratios and the equity risk premium is primarily driven by risk aversion, uncertainty plays a large role in the term structure and is the driver of countercyclical volatility of asset returns.     

Stock reaction to dividend savings of convertible preferred calls: Free cash flow or price pressure effects?

Calls of in-the-money convertible preferred stock typically induce dividend savings for the firm, since preferred dividends exceed common stock dividends. Prior research finds that these savings are negatively related to stock returns at call announcement and argues that the market expects managers to abuse the increased free cash flow. This paper finds that dividend savings are closely related to call size, suggesting other explanations. Larger calls experience a more negative announcement reaction. Consistent with temporary liquidity effects, there is a price reversal during the conversion period, which is greater for larger calls.     

Lost in translation: Delayed ex-dividend price adjustments of Hong Kong ADRs

Previous research documents that Hong Kong stocks have a full ex-dividend price adjustment consistent with dividends and capital gains being tax free. We examine ex-dividend price behavior of Hong Kong ADRs to assess the impact of differing tax environments in US and Hong Kong. These ADRs typically go ex-dividend before their underlying stock. They experience significant abnormal returns of 1.16% on their ex-day; the average ex-day price drop is only 30% of the dividend. However, ADR prices drop when the underlying stock goes ex-dividend subsequently. The cumulative ADR price drop is equal to the dividend. Thus, the ADR ex-dividend adjustment resembles that of the underlying stock, consistent with home country tax laws governing ADR price behavior. Neither liquidity nor transaction costs can explain the anomalous delayed ex-dividend adjustment of ADRs.     

Downside risk aversion,fixed-income exposure,and the value premium puzzle

The value premium is relatively small for investors with a material fixed-income exposure, such as insurance companies and pension funds, especially when they are downside-risk-averse. Value stocks are less attractive to these investors because they offer a relatively poor hedge against poor bond returns. This result arises for plausible, medium-term evaluation horizons of around one year. Our findings cast doubt on the practical relevance of the value premium for these investors and reiterate the importance of the choice of the relevant test portfolio, risk measure and investment horizon in empirical tests of market portfolio efficiency.     

EVIDENCE OF A RELATION BETWEEN STOCK PRICE REACTIONS AROUND CASH DIVIDEND CHANGES AND YIELDS

Here, the relation between stock price reactions to announced dividend changes and the yields of the underlying securities is examined. A significant positive (negative) relationship is detected between announcement date returns and yield for dividend increases (decreases) even after controlling for the magnitude of the dividend change. Price reactions associated with dividend increases vary directly with the change in yield and, on average, low-yielding companies do not experience abnormal returns when they increase their dividends. Implied in these results is that the information conveyed through dividend changes varies with the yield of the underlying security and the market response is a function of factors beyond the pure information effect.     

SENSITIVITY OF INVESTOR REACTION TO MARKET DIRECTION AND VOLATILITY: DIVIDEND CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENTS

We examine whether investor reactions are sensitive to the recent direction or volatility of underlying market movements. We find that dividend change announcements elicit a greater change in stock price when the nature of the news (good or bad) goes against the grain of the recent market direction during volatile times. For example, announcements to lower dividends elicit a significantly greater decrease in stock price when market returns have been up and more volatile. Similarly, announcements to raise dividends tends to elicit a greater increase in stock price when market returns have been normal or down and more volatile, although this latter tendency lacks statistical significance. We suggest an explanation for these results that combines the implications of a dynamic rational expectations equilibrium model with behavioral considerations that link the responsiveness of investors to market direction and volatility.     

Dividend Omissions and Intraindustry Information Transfers

We examine potential information transfers from companies that announce dividend omissions to their industry rivals. Specifically, we examine the abnormal stock returns and abnormal earnings forecast revisions of rivals after a company makes a dividend‐omission announcement. Our results show negative and significant abnormal stock returns and negative and significant abnormal forecast revisions for rival companies in response to the announcement, and a significant and positive relation between the two. We conclude that a dividend‐omission announcement transmits unfavorable information across the announcing company's industry that affects cash flow expectations and ultimately stock prices.     

The information content of cash dividend announcements in a unique environment

Due to its distinctive institutional background, Oman offers a valuable opportunity to examine stock price reactions to dividend announcements. In Oman, (1) there are no taxes on dividends and capital gains, (2) there is a high concentration of share ownership, (3) there is low corporate transparency, and (4) firms frequently change their dividends. Our results show that announcements of dividend increases are associated with increased stock prices, while announcements of dividend decreases cause decreases in stock prices. Firms that do not change their dividends experience insignificant negative returns. These results contradict tax-based signaling models, which argue that higher taxes on dividends relative to capital gains are a necessary condition for dividends to be informative.     

Empirical Evidence of the Existence of Investable Premiums in Emerging Market Investable Stocks

This paper shows that portfolios of more investable securities bear a premium when compared to portfolios of less investable stocks, reflecting compensation for local risk factors. The investable premium is overwhelmingly priced across 3,782 companies traded in 29 emerging markets from 1988 to 2006. The investable premium impacts stock returns at least as much as other fundamental premiums such as size, value, momentum, and loads on political, economic, and financial risk factors. The impact of the investable premium on emerging stocks returns has increased in strength, implying that foreign ownership has greater influence on local markets in recent years.     

Regime Shifts in Price‐Dividend Ratios and Expected Stock Returns: A Present‐Value Approach

We incorporate regime shifts in the mean of price‐dividend ratios into the present value model of van Binsbergen and Koijen (2010) who propose a latent variable approach to modeling expected returns and dividend growth rates. We find that accounting for regime shifts results in much lower persistence of expected returns and higher volatility of expected returns, and thus higher in‐sample predictability, when compared to the results from the van Binsbergen and Koijen (2010) model. We also show that the main source of the increase in the mean of price‐dividend ratios in the mid‐1990s is a decrease in the mean of expected returns.     

Risks for the Long Run: A Potential Resolution of Asset Pricing Puzzles

We model consumption and dividend growth rates as containing (1) a small long‐run predictable component, and (2) fluctuating economic uncertainty (consumption volatility). These dynamics, for which we provide empirical support, in conjunction with Epstein and Zin's (1989) preferences, can explain key asset markets phenomena. In our economy, financial markets dislike economic uncertainty and better long‐run growth prospects raise equity prices. The model can justify the equity premium, the risk‐free rate, and the volatility of the market return, risk‐free rate, and the price–dividend ratio. As in the data, dividend yields predict returns and the volatility of returns is time‐varying.     

Impact of liquidity on stock returns: an empirical investigation of the Tunisian stock market

This paper investigates the return–liquidity relationship on one Middle East and North Africa frontier market, the Tunisian Stock Exchange (TSE). The findings provide evidence that there is a significant and positive premium for companies with high price impact and low trading frequency. However, Tunisian investors appreciate more low spread stocks. We show, also, a non-linear relation between potential delays of execution and stock returns. In addition, we find that Tunisian investors require a premium to compensate past cumulative illiquidity risk (high price impact, low turnover and high potential delay of execution) over the prior three to 12 months and to compensate past cumulative spread over 12 months. We point out also that these effects are seasonal.