Australian evidence on the implementation of the size and value premia

This study investigates whether passive investment managers can exploit the size and value premia without incurring prohibitive transaction costs or being exposed to substantial tracking error risk. Returns on the value premium are shown to be pervasive across size groups, while the size premium is nonlinear and driven by microcaps. The value premium cannot be explained by the capital asset pricing model; however, returns on value portfolios do covary across monetary regimes. The substantial turnover required to achieve annual rebalancing and the relative illiquidity of Australian small‐cap firms means that investing in a portfolio of large‐cap value firms appears to be the best way for passive fund managers to exploit the Fama and French (1993) premia.     

Does investor recognition predict returns?

Merton [1987. A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance 42, 483–510] shows that stocks about which not all investors are informed should yield a return premium. This premium depends on the shadow cost of incomplete information which in turn depends on the shareholder base, relative market size, and idiosyncratic risk. Utilizing a comprehensive database of Swedish shareholdings, we demonstrate that stock returns are positively related to the shadow cost. We also find that the shareholder base is negatively related to returns when controlling for size and idiosyncratic risk. Zero-cost portfolios based on the shadow cost/shareholder base yield substantial trading profits that are never positively correlated with the market and are only modestly explained by the four-factor model.     

Interaction of size,book‐to‐market and momentum effects in Australia

This study seeks to disentangle the effects of size, book‐to‐market and momentum on returns. Initial results show that each characteristic has a role in explaining returns, but that there is interaction between size and momentum, as well as between size and book‐to‐market. Three key findings emerge. First, the size premium is the strongest, particularly in the loser portfolios. Second, the value premium is generally limited to the smallest portfolios. Third, the momentum premium is evident for the large‐ and middle‐sized portfolios, but loser stocks significantly outperform winner stocks in the smallest size portfolio. When these interactions are controlled with multivariate regression, we find a significant negative average relation between size and returns, a significant positive average relation between book‐to‐market and returns, and a significant positive average relation between momentum and returns.     

Intangible capital,volatility shock,and the value premium

This paper extends the canonical, neoclassical investment‐based asset‐pricing model through the incorporation of intangible capital and the formulation of a joint productivity distribution with economic uncertainty shocks at the firm level. The distinctive evolutionary dynamics of intangible capital as opposed to that of physical capital mitigate the negative impact of temporary uncertainty shock on production and serve well to explain the value premium with modest assumptions. The value premium is unconditionally positive, but the realized value spread plummets to negative after major transient second‐moment shocks, for example, the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the 9/11 terrorist attack.     

The Piotroski F‐score: evidence from Australia

A market‐neutral strategy that is long [short] stocks with a high [low] Piotroski F‐score generates an index‐weighted 0.8 percent pm on S&P/ASX 200 stocks and 1.4 percent pm on smaller stocks. Equal‐weighted returns are higher and in all cases returns are statistically significant. However, the Carhart model alphas are not statistically significant except in the case of equal‐weighted small cap portfolios. For such portfolios, however, most of the alpha comes from the short side and most institutional investors would find them uninvestable due to capacity constraints. A range of tests indicate that analyst neglect does not explain the F‐score premium.     

Liquidity risk and stock returns around the world

The recent global financial crisis demonstrates that market liquidity is a prominent systematic risk globally. We find that local liquidity risk, in addition to the local market, value and size factors, demands a systematic premium across stocks in 11 developed markets. This local pricing premium is smaller in countries where the country-level corporate boards are more effective and where there are less insider trading activities. We also discover that global liquidity risk is a significant pricing factor across all developed country market portfolios after controlling for global market, value, and size factors. The contribution of this risk to the return on a country market portfolio is economically and statistically significant within and across regions.     

Do Invesrtors Capture the Value Premium?

Do investors realize higher returns by investing in value stocks instead of gorwth stocks? Examination of a sample of equity indexes, mutual funds, and large‐cap stocks reveals no evidence that value firms have earned higher returns than growth firms. The value premium reported in the literarture is historically strongest for small‐capitalization firms, yea average annual rerturns for small‐cap equity funds are 14.10% for value funds compared to 14.52% for growth funds. Despite dramatic increases in mutual fund expense ratios from 1965 to 2001, fee differences across style funds cannot explain the absence of a value premium.     

Volatility Risk Premium,Risk Aversion,and the Cross‐Section of Stock Returns

We test if innovations in investor risk aversion are a priced factor in the stock market. Using 25 portfolios sorted on book‐to‐market and size as test assets, our new factor together with the market factor explains 64% of the variation in average returns compared to 60% for the Fama‐French model. The new factor is generally significant with an estimated risk premium close to its time series mean also when industry portfolios and portfolios sorted on previous returns are augmented to the test assets.     

Adverse Selection and the Capped Premium Subsidy in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

This article examines the relationship between adverse selection and the capped premium subsidy in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). Understanding this relationship is important, not only because the FEHBP is the largest employer‐sponsored health program in the United States, but also because it has been proposed as a market‐based model for the reform of both Medicare and the market for nongroup private coverage. We present a theoretical model of the FEHBP that we then test using enrollee data. In particular, we exploit the natural experiment that arises from variation in the premium subsidy cap across Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Although the nominalsubsidy cap is constant across MSAs, its real value varies greatly across MSAs with different price levels. The empirical analysis herein supports the contention that the premium subsidy in the FEHBP helps reduce adverse selection.     

Do zero-cost portfolios have the ability to predict economic growth? Evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan

In this paper we investigate the relationship between growth in future Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Industrial Production (IDP) and the performance of SMB (small stocks minus big stocks) and HML (High book-to-market stocks minus low book-to-market stocks) portfolios for equities listed in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.We find evidence to suggest that: (a) the excess market return is positively related to future GDP or IDP growth in South Korea and Taiwan; (b) contrary to most European markets, Australia, Japan and the US, future economic growth is in general significantly negatively related to SMB in Hong Kong and South Korea; and, (c) a negative relationship between future economic growth and HML for Hong Kong. Our results cast doubt if SMB and HML portfolios are positive risk factors in the Fama and French (Fama, E. F., and French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3-56) three-factor asset pricing model for Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.     

The Performance of Characteristics‐based Indices1

This paper analyses a set of characteristics‐based indices that, it has been argued, outperform market cap‐weighted indices. We analyse the performance of an exhaustive list of these indices and show that i) the outperformance over value‐weighted indices may be negative over long time periods, and ii) there is no significant outperformance over equal‐weighted indices. An analysis of the style and sector exposures of characteristics‐based indices reveals a significant value tilt. When this tilt is properly adjusted for, the abnormal returns of these indices decrease considerably. Moreover, it is straightforward to construct portfolios with higher Sharpe ratios than characteristics‐based indices through factor or sector tilts.     

Stock price informativeness,cross-listings,and investment decisions

We show that a cross-listing enables firms to obtain, from the stock market, more precise information about the value of their growth opportunities. Thus, cross-listed firms make better investment decisions and trade at a premium. This theory of cross-listings implies that the sensitivity of investment to stock prices is larger for cross-listed firms. Moreover, the cross-listing premium is positively related to the size of growth opportunities and negatively related to the quality of managerial information. The sensitivity of the premium to the size of growth opportunities increases with factors that strengthen the impact of the cross-listing on price informativeness.     

Size and momentum in European equity markets: empirical findings from varying beta Capital Asset Pricing Model

We use securities listed on 13 European equity markets to form size and momentum portfolios. We find limited evidence of a size premium but significant momentum returns in eight sample markets. We find that these premia may not constitute an anomaly because they are consistent with a varying‐beta Capital Asset Pricing Model. We also show that systematic risk is related to the business cycle. Furthermore, the results suggest that although size and especially momentum returns are significant, it would be difficult to exploit them in the short to medium run, because they are positive and sizeable in very few years in our sample.     

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.     

Conditional Asset Pricing and Stock Market Anomalies in Europe

This study provides European evidence on the ability of static and dynamic specifications of the Fama‐French (1993) three‐factor model to price 25 size‐B/M portfolios. In contrast to US evidence, we detect a small‐growth premium and find that the size effect is still present in Europe. Furthermore, we document strong time variation in factor risk loadings. Incorporating these risk fluctuations in conditional specifications of the three‐factor model clearly improves its ability to explain time variation in expected returns. However, the model still fails to completely capture cross‐sectional variation in returns as it is unable to explain the momentum effect.     

Disagreement and return predictability of stock portfolios

This paper provides evidence that portfolio disagreement measured bottom-up from individual-stock analyst forecast dispersions has a number of asset pricing implications. For the market portfolio, market disagreement mean-reverts and is negatively related to ex post expected market return. Contemporaneously, an increase in market disagreement manifests as a drop in discount rate. For book-to-market sorted portfolios, the value premium is stronger among high disagreement stocks. The underperformance by high disagreement stocks is stronger among growth stocks. Growth stocks are more sensitive to variations in disagreement relative to value stocks. These findings are consistent with asset pricing theory incorporating belief dispersion.     

Idiosyncratic volatility and the pricing of poorly-diversified portfolios

This article examines the role of idiosyncratic volatility in explaining the cross-sectional variation of size- and value-sorted portfolio returns. We show that the premium for bearing idiosyncratic volatility varies inversely with the number of stocks included in the portfolios. This conclusion is robust within various multifactor models based on size, value, past performance, liquidity and total volatility and also holds within an ICAPM specification of the risk–return relationship. Our findings thus indicate that investors demand an additional return for bearing the idiosyncratic volatility of poorly-diversified portfolios.     

Performance of technical analysis in growth and small cap segments of the US equity market

A large universe of technical trading rules applied to a set of technology industry and small cap sector portfolios over the 1995-2010 period yields superior predictability after adjusting for data snooping bias in the first half of the sample period and delivers statistically significant profits for a number of portfolios when the transaction cost is assumed to be of small to moderate size. Technical analysis is not able to outperform the buy-and-hold approach for any portfolio in the set in the second half of the sample period. The finding that the short-term return predictability becomes much weaker in the more recent period suggests that the underlying segments of the equity market have become more efficient over time. The fact that mechanical trading strategies have been futile after adjusting for data snooping bias for two samples of portfolios where technical analysis is most anticipated to succeed suggests that it is unlikely to have delivered abnormal returns in any other segment of the domestic equity market in the last decade.     

Hedge fund liquidity and performance: Evidence from the financial crisis

We investigate how share restrictions affect hedge fund performance in crisis and non-crisis periods. Consistent with prior research, we find that in the pre-crisis period more illiquid funds generate a share illiquidity premium compensating investors for limited liquidity. In the crisis period, this share illiquidity premium turns into an illiquidity discount. Hedge funds with more stringent share restrictions invest more heavily in illiquid assets. While share restrictions enable funds to manage illiquid assets effectively in the pre-crisis period, they seem insufficient to ensure effective management of illiquid portfolios in the crisis. In a crisis period, funds holding illiquid portfolios experience lower returns and alphas, also when share restrictions are controlled for. Funds with an asset–liability mismatch perform particularly poorly and experience the strongest outflows. Share restrictions are also a proxy for incentives as investors cannot immediately withdraw their money after poor performance. We show that higher incentive fees can offset the share illiquidity discount in the crisis period.     

What determines stock option contract design?

We analyze the factors that drive exercise price policy for executive option plans (ESOPs) and their scope in a country where firms are not subject to the tax and accounting considerations that seem to have led to the dominance of at-the-money options in the US Our “unbounded” data for Finland provide us with an excellent opportunity to investigate whether contract design is consistent with compensation theory. Our findings are largely consistent with predictions from the optimal contracting literature. The size of the plan is negatively related to Tobin's Q and firm size and positively related to proxies for monitoring costs, which also influence the probability of launching premium ESOPs. Our results also show that the premium (out-of-the-moneyness) is negatively related to prior stock returns and cash flow-to-assets, which may be an indication of high-water mark contracting, or alternatively, of managerial power. Finally, we also find some support for a positive relation between the premium and the length of the vesting period when maturity is fixed, which indicates an effort to keep the incentives for management from falling over time.