Asset pricing with liquidity risk

This paper solves explicitly a simple equilibrium model with liquidity risk. In our liquidity-adjusted capital asset pricing model, a security's required return depends on its expected liquidity as well as on the covariances of its own return and liquidity with the market return and liquidity. In addition, a persistent negative shock to a security's liquidity results in low contemporaneous returns and high predicted future returns. The model provides a unified framework for understanding the various channels through which liquidity risk may affect asset prices. Our empirical results shed light on the total and relative economic significance of these channels and provide evidence of flight to liquidity.     

Risk factors in Australian bond returns

This study examines the risk factors in Australian bond returns. The study quantifies bond liquidity and estimates a liquidity risk factor in the Australian setting. We develop a three‐factor asset pricing framework that uses term, default and liquidity risk factors to explain the variation of Australian bond returns. Our findings corroborate the US evidence on the pervasiveness of these risk factors faced by bond investors. The three‐factor model developed in this study has practical applications when calculating the cost of debt, evaluating the performance of an active bond fund manager and hedging underlying risk in a bond portfolio.     

Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing

The basic paradigm of asset pricing is in vibrant flux. The purely rational approach is being subsumed by a broader approach based upon the psychology of investors. In this approach, security expected returns are determined by both risk and misvaluation . This survey sketches a framework for understanding decision biases, evaluates the a priori arguments and the capital market evidence bearing on the importance of investor psychology for security prices, and reviews recent models.     

Asset liquidity,business risk,and beta

Extant literature posits that because of leverage, equity beta estimates from a single factor capital asset pricing model based on an equity-only market index are biased. We show analytically that this leverage bias is intimately related to the firm's asset structure per se, the firm's asset liquidity (i.e., cash holdings) and business risk. This is mainly because riskless cash holdings and risky real assets jointly determine the relevant risk for asset pricing. We empirically confirm that asset liquidity and business risk can marginally explain the leverage bias in the cross-section of stocks returns.     

Exchange Rates and the Conversion of Currency‐Specific Risk Premia

How do the risk factors that drive asset prices influence exchange rates? Are the parameters of asset price processes relevant for specifying exchange rate processes? Most international asset pricing models focus on the analysis of asset returns given exchange rate processes. Little work has been done on the analysis of exchange rates dependent on asset returns. This paper uses an international stochastic discount factor (SDF) framework to analyse the interplay between asset prices and exchange rates. So far, this approach has only been implemented in international term structure models. We find that exchange rates serve to convert currency‐specific discount factors and currency‐specific prices of risk – a result linked to the international arbitrage pricing theory (IAPT). Our empirical investigation of exchange rates and stock markets of four countries presents evidence for the conversion of currency‐specific risk premia by exchange rates.     

Volatilities and Momentum Returns in Real Estate Investment Trusts

We examine the relation of time-varying idiosyncratic risk and momentum returns in REITs using a GARCH-in-mean model and incorporate liquidity risk in the asset pricing model. This is important because illiquidity may be more severe for REITs due to the nature of their underlying assets. We find that momentum returns display asymmetric volatility, i.e., momentum returns are higher when volatility is higher. Additionally, we find evidence that REITs with lowest past returns (losers) have higher idiosyncratic risks than those with highest past returns (winners) and that investors require a lower risk premium for holding losers’ idiosyncratic risks. Therefore, although losers have higher levels of idiosyncratic risks, their low risk premia cause low returns, which contribute to momentum. Lastly, we find a positive relation between REITs’ momentum return and turnover.     

Feedback Effects and Asset Prices

Feedback effects from asset prices to firm cash flows have been empirically documented. This finding raises a question for asset pricing: How are asset prices determined if price affects fundamental value, which in turn affects price? In this environment, by buying assets that others are buying, investors ensure high future cash flows for the firm and subsequent high returns for themselves. Hence, investors have an incentive to coordinate, which may generate self‐fulfilling beliefs and multiple equilibria. Using insights from global games, we pin down investors' beliefs, analyze equilibrium prices, and show that strong feedback leads to higher excess volatility.     

Short-selling bans and institutional investors' herding behaviour: Evidence from the global financial crisis

The literature on short-selling restrictions focusses mainly on a ban's impact on market efficiency, liquidity and overpricing. Surprisingly, little is known about the effects of short-sale constraints on herd behaviour. Since institutional investors have come to dominate mature stock markets and rely extensively on short sales, constraining these traders may influence the asset pricing process. We investigate six stock markets that faced bans during the recent global financial crisis. Our empirical evidence shows that short-selling restrictions exhibit either no influence on herding formation or induce adverse herding. This implies a higher dispersion of returns around the market compared to rational asset pricing, which can be interpreted as an increase in uncertainty among stock market investors.     

Price and Volatility Transmission across Borders

Over the past forty years, financial markets throughout the world have steadily become more open to foreign investors. With open markets, asset prices are determined globally. A vast literature on portfolio choice and asset pricing has evolved to study the importance of global factors as well as local factors as determinants of portfolio choice and of expected returns on risky assets. There is growing evidence that risk premia are increasingly determined globally. An important outcome of this force of globalization is increased comovement in asset prices across markets. This survey study examines the literature on the dynamics of comovements in asset prices and volatility across markets around the world. The literature began in the 1970s in conjunction with early theoretical developments on international asset pricing models, but it blossomed in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the availability of comprehensive international stock market databases and the development of econometric methodology to model these dynamics.     

Cash demand,liquidation costs and capital market equilibrium under uncertainty

In this paper, the portfolio and the liquidity planning problems are unified and analyzed in one model. Stochastic cash demands have a significant impact on both the composition of an individual's optimal portfolio and the pricing of capital assets in market equilibrium. The derived capital asset pricing model with cash demands and liquidation costs shows that both the market price of risk and the systematic risk of an asset are affected by the aggregate cash demands and liquidity risk. The modified model does not require that all investors hold an identical risky portfolio as implied by the Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin model. Furthermore, it provides a possible explanation for the noted discrepancies between the empirical evidence and the prediction of the traditional capital asset pricing model.     

Volume, Opinion Divergence, and Returns: A Study of Post–Earnings Announcement Drift

This paper examines the relationship between post–earnings announcement returns and different measures of volume at the earnings date. We find that post‐event returns are strictly increasing in the component of volume that is unexplained by prior trading activity. We interpret unexplained volume as an indicator of opinion divergence among investors and conclude that post‐event returns are increasing in ex ante opinion divergence. Our evidence is consistent with Varian [1985] , who suggests that opinion divergence may be treated as an additional risk factor affecting asset prices.     

Derivative Pricing with Liquidity Risk: Theory and Evidence from the Credit Default Swap Market

We derive an equilibrium asset pricing model incorporating liquidity risk, derivatives, and short‐selling due to hedging of nontraded risk. We show that illiquid assets can have lower expected returns if the short‐sellers have more wealth, lower risk aversion, or shorter horizon. The pricing of liquidity risk is different for derivatives than for positive‐net‐supply assets, and depends on investors' net nontraded risk exposure. We estimate this model for the credit default swap market. We find strong evidence for an expected liquidity premium earned by the credit protection seller. The effect of liquidity risk is significant but economically small.     

Risk premia,asset price bubbles,and monetary policy

We develop a dynamic general equilibrium asset pricing model with heterogeneous beliefs to study the effects of monetary policy on prices, risk premia, asset price bubbles, and financial stability. We propose a new framework for monetary policy with respect to bubbles. Because bubble risk premia arise from an interaction between disagreements among investors and dynamic trading constraints, under a non-accommodative monetary policy, liquidity adjusted risk and bubble risk premia increase. What matters for policy is the trading constrained fraction/mass of agents that disagree about fundamentals (i.e. optimists/pessimists). Accommodative policy can lead to a larger fraction of trading constrained agents that disagree, larger bubbles, and increased systemic risk. An implication of our results is that accommodative monetary policy in response to the Covid-19 crisis does not increase systemic risk due to asset price bubbles, as long as the policy keeps inflation under control.     

The perception of time,risk and return during periods of speculation

Abstract

What return should you expect when you take on a given amount of risk? How should that return depend upon other people's behaviour? What principles can you use to answer these questions? In this paper, I approach these topics by exploring the consequences of two simple hypotheses about risk.

The first is a common-sense invariance principle: assets with the same perceived risk must have the same expected return. It leads directly to the well known Sharpe ratio and the classic risk-return relationships of arbitrage pricing theory and the capital asset pricing model.

The second hypothesis concerns the perception of time. I conjecture that in times of speculative excitement, short-term investors may instinctively imagine stock prices to be evolving in a time measure different from that of calendar time. They may perceive and experience the risk and return of a stock in intrinsic time, a dimensionless time scale that counts the number of trading opportunities that occur, but pays no attention to the calendar time that passes between them.

Applying the first hypothesis in the intrinsic time measure suggested by the second, I derive an alternative set of relationships between risk and return. Its most noteworthy feature is that, in the short-term, a stock's trading frequency affects its expected return. I show that short-term stock speculators will expect returns proportional to the temperature of a stock, where temperature is defined as the product of the stock's traditional volatility and the square root of its trading frequency. Furthermore, I derive a modified version of the capital asset pricing model in which a stock's excess return relative to the market is proportional to its traditional beta multiplied by the square root of its trading frequency.

I also present a model for the joint interaction of long-term calendar-time investors and short-term intrinsic-time speculators that leads to market bubbles characterized by stock prices that grow super-exponentially with time.

Finally, I show that the same short-term approach to options speculation can lead to an implied volatility skew.

I hope that this model will have some relevance to the behaviour of investors expecting inordinate returns in highly speculative markets.     

Asset pricing in China's domestic stock markets: Is there a logic?

China's stock markets have grown rapidly since their inception and have become an increasingly important emerging market for international investors. However, there are few systematic studies on how asset prices are formed in Chinese domestic equity markets; popular financial media even depict the market as irrational. In this paper, we study the asset pricing mechanism in the nascent Chinese stock markets, with the objective of identifying variables that capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns. We focus on the effects of various market imperfections in China. We find that while the market risk (beta) is not priced, there is a significantly negative relationship between firm-specific risk and expected returns. Chinese investors are willing to pay a significant premium for more liquid stocks or for dividend-paying stocks. Furthermore, investors value local A-shares more if there are offshore counterparts (e.g., B- and H-shares) for foreigners, implying that a Chinese firm with a foreign shareholder base has a lower cost of capital, ceteris paribus. Lastly, as with U.S. and other mature markets, firm size and the book-to-market ratio are systematically related to stock returns. Given market imperfections, stocks are priced rather rationally in China, despite the widespread perception to the contrary.     

Time-varying stock returns and labor income risks in the US and UK

I propose and estimate conditional asset pricing models where the risk premiums of the markets are related to the conditional covariance of the markets with labor income growth within and across countries and the volatility of the markets are related to the shocks and interactions of stock returns and labor income growth. I document that the risk premiums for the US and UK stock markets are more related to the conditional covariance of returns with the labor income growth within countries than across countries. I also find significant interactions of volatilities between stock returns and labor income within countries but not across countries. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that prices of domestic stocks are determined to a greater extent by stochastic discount factors of domestic investors than foreign investors and vice versa.     

The world price of liquidity risk

This paper empirically tests the liquidity-adjusted capital asset pricing model of Acharya and Pedersen (2005) on a global level. Consistent with the model, I find evidence that liquidity risks are priced independently of market risk in international financial markets. That is, a security’s required rate of return depends on the covariance of its own liquidity with aggregate local market liquidity, as well as the covariance of its own liquidity with local and global market returns. I also show that the US market is an important driving force of global liquidity risk. Furthermore, I find that the pricing of liquidity risk varies across countries according to geographic, economic, and political environments. The findings show that the systematic dimension of liquidity provides implications for international portfolio diversification.     

Presidential Address: Liquidity and Price Discovery

This paper examines the implications of market microstructure for asset pricing. I argue that asset pricing ignores the central fact that asset prices evolve in markets. Markets provide liquidity and price discovery, and I argue that asset pricing models need to be recast in broader terms to incorporate the transactions costs of liquidity and the risks of price discovery. I argue that symmetric information‐based asset pricing models do not work because they assume that the underlying problems of liquidity and price discovery have been solved. I develop an asymmetric information asset pricing model that incorporates these effects.     

Liquidity and asset pricing: Evidence from the Hong Kong stock market

This study investigates the role of liquidity in pricing stock returns in the Hong Kong stock market. Our results show that liquidity is an important factor for pricing returns in Hong Kong after taking well-documented asset pricing factors into consideration. The results are robust to adding portfolio residuals and higher moment factor in the factor models. The results are also robust to seasonality, and conditional-market tests. We also compare alternative factor models and find that the liquidity four-factor model (market excess return, size, book-to-market ratio, and liquidity) is the best model to explain stock returns in the Hong Kong stock market, while the momentum factor is not found to be priced.     

Industry‐Specific Human Capital,Idiosyncratic Risk,and the Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns

Human capital is one of the largest assets in the economy and in theory may play an important role for asset pricing. Human capital is heterogeneous across investors. One source of heterogeneity is industry affiliation. I show that the cross‐section of expected stock returns is primarily affected by industry‐level rather than aggregate labor income risk. Furthermore, when human capital is excluded from the asset pricing model, the resulting idiosyncratic risk may appear to be priced. I find that the premium for idiosyncratic risk documented by several empirical studies depends on the covariance between stock and human capital returns.