Is liquidity the missing link?

Durand et al. (2006a ) argue that the Australian market is both internationally integrated and domestically segmented. They find that the US‐based three‐factor model captures returns of the largest stocks in Australia (evidence of international integration), but that it is unable to account for the returns of the smallest stocks (evidence of domestic segmentation). This study resolves the puzzle left by Durand et al. (2006a) . Incorporating a liquidity factor provides the missing link in their analysis: it results in a model that permits both the international integration of the largest stocks and the model can account for the returns of the smallest stocks. Our analysis highlights the important role of liquidity in Australian asset pricing.     

In America's thrall: the effects of the US market and US security characteristics on Australian stock returns

Can Australian equity returns be modelled by ‘home‐grown’ factors? We examine the indigenous capital asset pricing model, the indigenous Fama–French three‐factor model, and extensions to the latter, and find them all wanting. We find evidence of domestic market segmentation in Australia. For the smallest firms, all the models we study fail. For the largest Australian firms, we find that the US Fama–French three factors (downloaded from French's website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/ ) provide a successful model of Australian returns. It is as if the largest firms in the Australian market are simply part of the larger US market.     

The Australian asset‐pricing debate

Utilising a comprehensive data set for Australian firms, we examine a range of competing asset‐pricing models, including the four‐ and five‐factor models where the equity‐risk premium is augmented by size, value, momentum and liquidity premia, and find that none of the models tested appears to adequately explain the cross section of Australian returns. A model accounting for Australia's integration with the US equity market appears to be the best of the competing models we study. Our argument that a model recognising Australia's integration with the USA is supported when we apply the portfolio and factor construction methodology suggested by Brailsford et al. (2012a,b).     

THE IMPORTANCE OF LIQUIDITY AS A FACTOR IN ASSET PRICING

We employ the Fama‐French time‐series regression approach to examine liquidity as a risk factor affecting stock returns. Prior studies establish liquidity as an important consideration in investment decisions. Here, liquidity is found to be an important factor affecting portfolio returns, even after the effects of market, size, book‐to‐market equity, and momentum are considered. Nonzero intercepts remain, however, indicating continued missing risk factors.     

Factor pricing in commodity futures and the role of liquidity

This paper empirically investigates the pricing factors and their associated risk premiums of commodity futures. Existing pricing factors in equity and bond markets, including market premium and term structure, are tested in commodity futures markets. Hedging pressure in commodity futures markets and momentum effects is also considered. This study combines these factors to discuss their importance in explaining commodity future returns, while the literature has studied these factors separately. One of the important pricing factors in equity and bond markets is liquidity, but its role as a pricing factor in commodity futures markets has not yet been studied. To our knowledge, this research is the first to study liquidity as a pricing factor in commodity futures. The risk premiums of two momentum factors and speculators’ hedging pressure range from 2% to 3% per month and are greater than the risk premiums of roll yield (0.8%) and liquidity (0.5%). The result of a significant liquidity premium suggests that liquidity is priced in commodity futures.     

Municipal Debt and Marginal Tax Rates: Is There a Tax Premium in Asset Prices?

We study the marginal tax rate incorporated into short‐term municipal rates using municipal swap market data. Using an affine model, we identify the marginal tax rate and the credit/liquidity spread in 1‐week tax‐exempt rates, as well as their associated risk premia. The marginal tax rate averages 38.0% and is related to stock, bond, and commodity returns. The tax risk premium is negative, consistent with the strong countercyclical nature of after‐tax fixed‐income cash flows. These results demonstrate that tax risk is a systematic asset pricing factor and help resolve the muni‐bond puzzle.     

Asset Pricing and the Illiquidity Premium

In this paper, we examine the asset‐pricing role of liquidity (as proxied by share turnover) in the context of the Fama and French (1993) three‐factor model. Our analysis employs monthly Australian data, covering the sample period from 1990 to 1998. The key finding of our research is that the main test is unable to reject the test of over‐identifying restrictions, thus supporting the overall favorability of the liquidity‐augmented Fama–French model. In addition, we find that the asset‐pricing performance of the liquidity factor is generally very robust to a wide range of sensitivity checks.     

Liquidity risk and the cross-section of hedge-fund returns

This paper demonstrates that liquidity risk as measured by the covariation of fund returns with unexpected changes in aggregate liquidity is an important determinant in the cross-section of hedge-fund returns. The results show that funds that significantly load on liquidity risk subsequently outperform low-loading funds by about 6% annually, on average, over the period 1994–2008, while negative performance is observed during liquidity crises. The returns are independent of the liquidity a fund provides to its investors as measured by lockup and redemption notice periods, and they are also robust to commonly used hedge-fund factors, none of which carries a significant premium during the sample period. These findings highlight the importance of understanding systematic liquidity variations in the evaluation of hedge-fund performance.     

A Multifactor Model of Credit Spreads

We represent credit spreads across ratings as a function of common unobservable factors of the Vasicek form. Using a state-space approach we estimate the factors, their process parameters, and the exposure of each observed credit spread series to each factor. We find that most of the systematic variation across credit spreads is captured by three factors. The factors are closely related to the implied volatility index (VIX), the long bond rate, and S&P500 returns, supporting the predictions of structural models of default at an aggregate level. By making no prior assumption about the determinants of yield spread dynamics, our study provides an original and independent test of theory. The results also contribute to the current debate about the role of liquidity in corporate yield spreads. While recent empirical literature shows that the level and time-variation in corporate yield spreads is driven primarily by a systematic liquidity risk factor, we find that the three most important drivers of yield spread levels relate to macroeconomic variables. This suggests that if credit spread levels do contain a large liquidity premium, the time variation of this premium is likely driven by the same factors as default risk.     

Do liquidity and idiosyncratic risk matter? Evidence from the European mutual fund market

This paper examines the interaction of idiosyncratic risk, liquidity and return across time in determining fund performance, as well as across investment style portfolios of European mutual funds. This study utilizes a unique data set including returns for equity mutual funds registered in six European countries. Overall, using monthly data, we find that both liquidity and idiosyncratic risk are relevant in determining mutual fund returns. Our results are robust across different model specifications. We show that model specifications up to six factors are useful as these risk factors capture different aspects in the cross-section of mutual funds returns. The evidence regarding mutual funds subgroups is strongly in favor of the significance of liquidity, and idiosyncratic risk to a lesser extent, as risk factors. Even if liquidity and idiosyncratic risk are considered at the same time, one factor is not significantly decreasing the importance of the other factor.     

Liquidity in the Foreign Exchange Market: Measurement,Commonality, and Risk Premiums

We provide the first systematic study of liquidity in the foreign exchange market. We find significant variation in liquidity across exchange rates, substantial illiquidity costs, and strong commonality in liquidity across currencies and with equity and bond markets. Analyzing the impact of liquidity risk on carry trades, we show that funding (investment) currencies offer insurance against (exposure to) liquidity risk. A liquidity risk factor has a strong impact on carry trade returns from 2007 to 2009, suggesting that liquidity risk is priced. We present evidence that liquidity spirals may trigger these findings.     

Tangibility and investment irreversibility in asset pricing

Zhang (2005) and Cooper (2006) provide a theoretical risk‐based explanation for the value premium by suggesting a nexus between firms’ book‐to‐market ratio and investment irreversibility. They argue that unproductive physical capacity is costly in contracting conditions but provides growth opportunities during economic expansions, resulting in covariant risk between firms’ investment in tangible assets and market‐wide returns. This article uses the Australian accounting environment to empirically test this theory – a test that is not possible using US data. Consistent with the theoretical argument, tangibility is priced in equity returns, and augmenting the Fama and French three‐factor model with a tangibility factor increases model explanatory power.     

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.     

Are Liquidity and Information Risks Priced in the Treasury Bond Market?

We provide a comprehensive empirical analysis of the effects of liquidity and information risks on expected returns of Treasury bonds. We focus on the systematic liquidity risk of Pastor and Stambaugh as opposed to the traditional microstructure-based measures of liquidity. Information risk is measured by the probability of information-based trading (PIN). We document a strong positive relation between expected Treasury returns and liquidity and information risks, controlling for the effects of other systematic risk factors and bond characteristics. This relation is robust to many empirical specifications and a wide variety of traditional liquidity and informed trading proxies.     

Characterizing the Risk of IPO Long‐Run Returns: The Impact of Momentum,Liquidity, Skewness,and Investment

We study 6,686 initial public offerings (IPOs) spanning the period 1981‐2005 and find that the new issues puzzle disappears in a Fama‐French three‐factor framework. IPOs do not underperform in the aftermarket on a risk‐adjusted basis and do not underperform a matched sample of nonissuers. IPO underperformance is concentrated in the 1980s and early 1990s, and IPOs either perform the same as the market or outperform on a risk‐adjusted basis from 1998 to 2005. We find that outperformance in the later period is driven by large firms. Factors for momentum, investment, liquidity, and skewness help to explain aftermarket returns, although size and book‐to‐market tend to proxy for skewness. IPO investors receive smaller expected returns due to negative momentum and investment exposure and in exchange for higher liquidity.     

A best choice among asset pricing models? The Conditional Capital Asset Pricing Model in Australia

We use Australian data to test the Conditional Capital Asset Pricing Model (Jagannathan and Wang, 1996). Our results are generally supportive: the model performs well compared with a number of competing asset pricing models. In contrast to the study by Jagannathan and Wang, however, we find that the inclusion of the market for human capital does not save the concept of the time‐independent market beta (it remains insignificant). We find support for the role of a small‐minus‐big factor in pricing the cross‐section of returns and find grounds to disagree with Jagannathan and Wang's argument that this factor proxies for misspecified market risk.     

Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns

This paper studies the pricing of liquidity risk in the cross section of corporate bonds for the period from January 1994 to March 2009. The average return on bonds with high sensitivities to aggregate liquidity exceeds that for bonds with low sensitivities by about 4% annually. The positive relation between expected corporate bond returns and liquidity beta is robust to the effects of default and term betas, liquidity level, and other bond characteristics, as well as to different model specifications, test methodologies, and a variety of liquidity measures. The results suggest that liquidity risk is an important determinant of expected corporate bond returns.     

Size,value, and momentum in developed country equity returns: Macroeconomic and liquidity exposures

The paper investigates value and momentum factors in 23 developed international stock markets. We find that typically value and momentum premia are smaller and more negatively correlated for large market capitalization stocks relative to small. Momentum factors are more highly correlated internationally relative to value. We provide international evidence on three sets of risk exposures of value and momentum returns: macroeconomic risk, funding liquidity risk, and stock market liquidity risk. We find that value returns are typically lower prior to a recession while momentum returns often exhibit little sensitivity. Value returns are typically lower in times of poor funding liquidity, whereas, with notable exceptions, momentum returns are typically unaffected. Lastly, for almost all countries, value returns are high in poor stock market liquidity conditions.     

Commonality in Liquidity and Real Estate Securities

We conduct an empirical investigation of the exposure of U.S. REIT returns to commonality in liquidity. Taking advantage of the specific characteristics of REITs, we study three types of commonality in liquidity: within-asset commonality, cross-asset commonality (with the stock market), and commonality with the underlying property market. We find evidence that the three types of commonality in liquidity represent significant risk factors for REIT returns but only during bad market conditions. We also find that using a linear approach, rather than a conditional, would have underestimated the role of commonality in liquidity risk. This could explain (at least partly) the small impact of commonality on asset prices documented in the extant literature. We also analyze the economic sources of commonality in liquidity and find that demand-side factors prevail over supply-side factors.     

Private Equity Performance and Liquidity Risk

Private equity has traditionally been thought to provide diversification benefits. However, these benefits may be lower than anticipated as we find that private equity suffers from significant exposure to the same liquidity risk factor as public equity and other alternative asset classes. The unconditional liquidity risk premium is about 3% annually and, in a four‐factor model, the inclusion of this liquidity risk premium reduces alpha to zero. In addition, we provide evidence that the link between private equity returns and overall market liquidity occurs via a funding liquidity channel.