Estimating the Cost of Equity for Property-Liability Insurance Companies

Due to the highly skewed and heavy‐tailed distributions associated with the insurance claims process, we evaluate the Rubinstein‐Leland (RL) model for its ability to improve the cost of equity estimates of insurance companies because of its distribution‐free feature. Our analyses show that there is as large as a 94‐basis‐point difference in the estimated cost of insurance equity between the RL model and the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) for the sample of property‐liability insurers with more severe departures from normality. In addition, consistent with our hypotheses, significant differences in the market risk estimates are found for insurers with return distributions that are asymmetrically distributed, and for small insurers. Third, we find significant performance improvements from using the RL model by showing smaller values of excess return of the expected return of the portfolio to the model return for a portfolio of insurers with returns that are more skewed and for a portfolio of small insurers. Finally, our panel data analysis shows the differences in the market risk estimates are significantly influenced by firm size, degree of leverage, and degree of asymmetry. The implication is that insurers should use the RL model rather than the CAPM to estimate its cost of capital if the insurer is small (assets size is less than $2,291 million), and/or its returns are not symmetrical (the value of skewness is greater than 0.509 or less than ?0.509).     

Analyzing the German accounting triad — “Accounting Premium” for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP vis-à-vis German GAAP?

This paper critically examines the impact of voluntary adoption of Internationally Accepted Accounting Principles (IAAP, i.e., IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP) on the cost of equity capital in Germany. We find that (1) overall cost of equity-capital estimates in the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) for companies applying IAAP are significantly lower compared to those applying German GAAP, (2) an enhanced multi-factor model which incorporates the accounting-regime differences (called “GM model”) absorbs the cost of equity-capital differences, and (3) changes of the institutional background in Germany and of the accounting standards lead to different cost of equity capital effects for subperiods of the 1998–2004 voluntary-adoption period, while particularly controlling for effects like self-selection, cross-listing, and New Market (Neuer Markt) listing.The central thesis advanced in this paper is that changes in the accounting standards and the institutional infrastructure can influence the impact of applying IAAP. Therefore, we suggest incorporating an accounting factor into the cost of equity-capital analysis.     

Yes,The APT Is Testable

The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) has been proposed as an alternative to the mean-variance Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). This paper considers the testability of the APT and points out the irrelevance for testing of the approximation error. We refute Shanken's objections, including his assertion that Roll's critique of the CAPM is applicable to the APT. We also explain the testability of the APT on subsets, and we explore the relationship between the APT and the CAPM.     

Estimating the Cost of Equity Capital for Property-Liability Insurers

This article presents new evidence on the cost of equity capital by line of insurance for the property‐liability insurance industry. To do so we obtain firm beta estimates and then use the full‐information industry beta (FIB) methodology to decompose the cost of capital by line. We obtain full‐information beta estimates using the standard one‐factor capital asset pricing model and extend the FIB methodology to incorporate the Fama–French three‐factor cost of capital model. The analysis suggests the cost of capital for insurers using the Fama–French model is significantly higher than the estimates based upon the CAPM. In addition, we find evidence of significant differences in the cost of equity capital across lines.     

Beyond CAPM: estimating the cost of equity considering idiosyncratic risks

The present study proposes a new evaluation approach aimed at estimating the cost of equity through standardized models which consider an innovative set of firm-specific information on the main unsystematic risks which are typical of any business. Our objective is extending the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) by defining a standard formula for quantifying the premium for certain idiosyncratic risks as a function of a new set of firm-specific quantitative information. We define two econometric models, for listed and non-listed firms respectively, which consider five idiosyncratic risk factors: firm size, value factor, operating risks, financial structure and stock market price volatility. The models were tested on a sample of European non-financial companies. The empirical results show that while the CAPM systematically underestimates the cost of equity, the proposed models correctly estimate its expected value; furthermore, they show a slight improvement also in terms of estimates’ volatility. Due to their efficacy and ease of use, the proposed models represent a valid practical tool for investors, analysts and professional evaluators. This work contributes to the existing literature by proposing a typologically innovative extension of the CAPM set of explanatory variables, defining and testing new models for the estimation of the unsystematic risks’ spread of the cost of equity based on an original set of firm-specific accounting and market information.     

Multifactor Asset Pricing Models

Since the early 1960s, the mean-variance Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) has been a dominant paradigm in modern finance. Recently, the accumulation of anomalous evidence, and a realisation that empirical tests of the model are tautologically related to the efficiency of the market index, have pushed that paradigm to a point of crisis. This paper reviews alternative asset pricing models which coexisted with the CAPM and may provide plausible substitutes. The major distinguishing feature of these models is that they predict multiple risk factors and, with the exception of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), are extensions of the CAPM.     

Optimal Capital Utilization by Financial Firms: Evidence from the Property-Liability Insurance Industry

Capitalization levels in the property-liability insurance industry have increased dramatically in recent years—the capital-to-assets ratio rose from 25% in 1989 to 35% by 1999. This paper investigates the use of capital by insurers to provide evidence on whether the capital increase represents a legitimate response to changing market conditions or a true inefficiency that leads to performance penalties for insurers. We estimate best practice technical, cost, and revenue frontiers for a sample of insurers over the period 1993–1998, using data envelopment analysis, a non-parametric technique. The results indicate that most insurers significantly over-utilized equity capital during the sample period. Regression analysis provides evidence that capital over-utilization primarily represents an inefficiency for which insurers incur significant revenue penalties.     

A NEW APPROACH TO CAPITAL BUDGETING FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The classic approach to capital budgeting based on the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) says that the hurdle rate (or cost of capital) for any new project or investment should depend only on the riskiness of that investment. Thus, the hurdle rate, and hence the expected value of the investment, should not be affected by the financial policy of the company evaluating the project. Nor should the hurdle rate be influenced by the company's risk management policy, or by the kind of assets it already has on the balance sheet. This article argues that such a “singlefactor” model may be inappropriate for banks and other financial institutions for two main reasons:

• ? it is especially costly for banks to raise new external funds on short notice;
• ? it is costly for banks to hold a buffer stock of equity capital on the balance sheet, even if this equity is accumulated over time through retained earnings.

The single-factor CAPM ignores such costs and, in so doing, understates the true economic costs of “illiquid” bank investments. Illiquid investments require special treatment because they impose risks that, although “diversifiable” by shareholders, cannot be readily hedged by the bank and therefore require it to hold more equity capital. The authors accordingly propose a “two-factor” model for capital budgeting— one in which banks' investment decisions are linked to their capital structure and risk management decisions. One of the key implications of the two-factor model is that a bank should evaluate new investments according to both their correlation with the market portfolio and their correlation with the bank's existing portfolio of unhedgeable risks. The authors describe several potential applications of their model, including the evaluation of proprietary trading operations and the pricing of unhedgeable derivatives positions. They also compare their approach to the RAROC methodology that has been adopted by a number of banks.     

The attributes,behavior, and performance of U.S. mutual funds

This article examines the risk and return characteristics of U.S. mutual funds. We employ an equilibrium version of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) and a principal-components-based statistical technique to identify performance benchmarks. We also consider the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) as an alternative. We implement a procedure for overcoming the rotational indeterminacy of factor models. This procedure is a hybrid of statistical factor estimation and prespecification of factors. We estimate measures of timing ability for the CAPM and extend it to the APT. We find that this timing test is misspecified due to noninformation-based changes in mutual fund betas. We develop a modification of the timing measure that, under certain conditions, distinguishes true timing ability from noninformation-based beta changes.     

What Cost of Capital Should You Use? The Market Has an Answer

The most widely used means of estimating a company's cost of equity capital is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). But as a growing number of academics and practitioners have suggested, use of the CAPM produces estimates that often fail to reflect the risks of the companies as perceived by current and potential investors. The authors' work, together with other research, also suggests that the cost of equity produced by the CAPM is often too high. To the extent this is so, companies are discounting investment projects at rates of return that may be leading them to pass up value‐adding opportunities. The authors advocate the use of a simple and practical alternative to the CAPM that does not use either an assumed market risk premium or a beta. It uses instead an equity premium that is implied by the current market price of a company's stock and, as such, is implicitly derived from investors' assessments of the firm's risk that are reflected in that price. More specifically, the alternative approach solves for the internal rate of return that equates the present value of expected future cash flows to the current market price. In support of this approach, studies have shown that such market‐implied measures are better predictors than CAPM‐based estimates of future stock returns, both at the individual‐firm and aggregate market levels.