Is U.S. economic policy uncertainty priced in China's A-shares market? Evidence from market,industry, and individual stocks

This paper is motivated by Bali, Brown, and Tang (2017) who find U.S. economic policy uncertainty (EPU) is priced in the cross-section of U.S. stock returns, and uses weekly data from March 2006 to April 2016 to study whether shocks in U.S. EPU also influence prices of China's A-shares from a market, industry, and individual stock perspective. Our methodology relies on an ARMA (1,1) model to extract shocks in the U.S. EPU series and a GARCH (1,1) model to examine how returns of China's A-shares respond to these shocks after controlling for business conditions proxied by term and credit spread in China. Generally, we find that shocks in U.S. EPU significantly and negatively explain returns of Chinese A-shares with a lag of one week. In addition, the market index containing small and growth stocks is more sensitive to shocks in U.S. EPU than the index containing big and value stocks. Furthermore, we find that firms in manufacturing, information technology, and media industries in China are more sensitive to shocks in U.S. EPU, while firms in agriculture and real estate industries respond less to shocks in U.S. EPU. Finally, China's A-shares which decline more in response to shocks in U.S. EPU have higher returns, smaller market capitalization, weaker operating profitability, higher asset growth, and better past year's cumulative returns. Overall, our findings show that investors in the Chinese A-shares market require a premium to hold stocks that are sensitive to shocks in U.S. economic policy uncertainty.     

Big is brilliant: Understanding the Chinese size effect through profitability shocks

Taking a dynamic view, this paper assesses the extent to which profitability shocks affect the size premium in the Chinese market. In the short run, there is a significant U-shaped relationship between size and profitability shocks; i.e., both small and large firms experience large and (in most cases) positive profitability shocks, while firms with medium market capitalizations display small profitability shocks. In the long run, profitability shocks in large firms remain large and stable, while profitability shocks in small firms decrease sharply. Adjusting for profitability shocks increases the returns of small firms but decreases the returns of large firms, indicating that large and positive profitability shocks in small firms cannot bring investors sizable returns even though the correlation between profitability shocks and returns is positive. Mismatches between profitability shocks and the per-unit return impact of such shocks (e.g., when firms experience positive shocks but the market reacts to these shocks irrationally) can help explain this phenomenon. Our work reveals that in terms of fundamentals, large firms are very worthy of investment owing to their superb fundamental performance, i.e., large and persistent profitability shocks.     

Profitability,Value, and Stock Returns in Production‐Based Asset Pricing without Frictions

In a production‐based asset pricing model without adjustment costs and with decreasing returns to scale following Brock (1982), stock returns at the firm level are determined by profitability, the book‐to‐market ratio, and the change in future profitability prospects. Although firms with low book‐to‐market ratios are normally more profitable and profitable firms are predicted to have higher returns, the stylized fact that book‐to‐market ratios positively forecast returns still holds theoretically, but with specific predicted exceptions. These implications are confirmed empirically.     

Firm profitability and expected stock returns: Evidence from Latin America

Despite their higher valuation ratios, larger size, and higher investment needs, profitable firms outperform, in both raw and risk-adjusted returns, unprofitable firms in Latin America. The positive effect of firm profitability on stock returns is pervasive in univariate and bivariate sorts, panel regressions, across sub-regional markets, and among small and large stocks. A five-factor model that includes market, size, distress, profitability, and investment factors prices profitability portfolios better than other popular factor models. Five-factor alphas of profitability portfolios tend to be lower and less statistically significant, both individually and collectively, than alphas from other three widely-used pricing models.     

Is the Mean Return of Hotel Real Estate Stocks Apt to Overreact to Past Performance?

This study examines the return patterns of hotel real estate stocks in the U.S. during the period from 1990 to 2007.We find that the magnitude and persistence of future mean returns of hotel real estate stocks can be predicted based on past returns, past earnings surprise, trading volume, firm size, and holding period. The empirical evidence found from this paper confirms that short-horizon contrarian profits can be partially explained by the lead-lag effects, while in the intermediate-term price momentum profits and long-term contrarian profits can be partially attributed to the firms’ overreaction to past price changes. Our results support the contrarian/overreaction hypothesis, and they are inconsistent with the Fama-French risk-based hypothesis or the underreaction hypothesis. The study also confirms the earning underreaction hypothesis and finds the high volume stocks tend to earn high momentum profits in the intermediate-term. The study finds that the earning momentum effect for hotel stocks is more short-lived and smaller in magnitude than the market average. Price momentum portfolios (or contrarian portfolios) of big hotel firms underperform small hotel firms and the hotel price momentum portfolio (or contrarian portfolios) significantly underperform the overall market over the intermediate-term (or the long-term). These findings imply that the U.S. hotel industry, particularly the big hotel firms, have experienced relatively conservative growth in the sample period. It suggests that a conservative hotel growth strategy accompanied by an internal-oriented financing policy is proper in a period of prosperity.     

上市公司综合盈利水平与股票收益

本文基于2000-2017年上市公司的财务及股票交易数据,研究了上市公司综合盈利水平与股票收益之间的关系。我们使用目前资产定价文献中较新的偏最小二乘法和组合预测法,从12个衡量公司盈利能力的指标中提取了一个测度上市公司综合盈利水平的指标。研究结果显示,上市公司综合盈利水平能够显著预测未来股票收益。使用单因子偏最小二乘法、取12个月斜率的平均值构造的综合盈利水平最有效,以其构建的多空对冲投资组合能产生15%的年平均收益,夏普比率达到0.75。与此对应,组合预测法提取的上市公司综合盈利水平的预测能力稍低,但依然显著。在控制了其他公司特征变量后,综合盈利水平对于股票收益的解释能力依然稳健。本文还从经济机制的角度出发,探讨了综合盈利水平对收益的预测来源。我们发现,上市公司综合盈利水平与股票预期回报的正向关系在投资摩擦更低的组中更高,而在错误定价程度更高的组通常更低。这些结果支持了基于投资摩擦的Q理论,而与行为金融的错误定价理论相悖。     

Did the value premium survive the subprime credit crisis?

We provide evidence that value stocks significantly underperformed growth stocks during the subprime credit crisis, despite a positive value premium before the crisis. The reversal in the value premium concentrates in financially constrained firms, suggesting it was due to the adverse influence of the crisis rather than confounding effects. These findings are robust to alternative financial constraint proxies and asset pricing models. The observation that value stocks are vulnerable to losses during extreme downturns like the crisis is consistent with them being riskier than growth stocks. Our findings have implications for the academic debate on the underlying cause of the value premium and for investors on the profitability of value investing strategies.     

International tests of a five-factor asset pricing model

Average stock returns for North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific increase with the book-to-market ratio (B/M) and profitability and are negatively related to investment. For Japan, the relation between average returns and B/M is strong, but average returns show little relation to profitability or investment. A five-factor model that adds profitability and investment factors to the three-factor model of Fama and French (1993) largely absorbs the patterns in average returns. As in Fama and French, 2015, Fama and French, 2016, the model's prime problem is failure to capture fully the low average returns of small stocks whose returns behave like those of low profitability firms that invest aggressively.     

Is momentum trading profitable from Shari'ah compliant stocks?

This research offers fresh evidence supporting the pervasiveness of the momentum effect. Two decades after the momentum profitability firstly documented by Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), yet little research has been specifically devised for the momentum profitability on Shari'ah compliant stocks. We assess the momentum profitability over the Shari'ah compliant stocks in a Malaysian setting. We find evidence of strong return persistence as far as toward four-year holding period. Interestingly, no significant momentum returns are found among the conventional stocks. Upon further exploration we find neither an industry-driven momentum effect nor the small size firms can account for the momentum returns. Using return persistency formation criteria, we further find that underreaction seems to well fit in explaining this unique long lasting momentum profitability.     

The predictability of real estate returns and market timing

Recent evidence suggests that all asset returns are predictable to some extent with excess returns on real estate relatively easier to forecast. This raises the issue of whether we can successfully exploit this level of predictability using various market timing strategies to realize superior performance over a buy-and-hold strategy. We find that the level of predicability associated with real estate leads to moderate success in market timing, although this is not necessarily the case for the other asset classes examined in general. Besides this, real estate stocks typically have higher trading profits and higher mean risk-adjusted excess returns when compared to small stocks as well as large stocks and bonds even though most real estate stocks are small stocks.     

Investment and the Cross‐Section of Equity Returns

The data show that, upon being hit by adverse profitability shocks, large public firms have ample latitude to divest their least productive assets, reducing the risk faced by shareholders and the returns that they are likely to demand. In the one‐factor production‐based asset pricing model, when the frictions to capital adjustment are shaped to respect the evidence on investment, the model‐generated cross‐sectional dispersion of returns is only a small fraction of that documented in the data. Our conclusions hold even when operating or labor leverage is modeled in ways shown to be promising in the extant literature.     

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 and the value premium: Evidence from the French stock market

This paper documents that systematic volatility risk is an important factor that drives the value premium observed in the French stock market. Using returns on at-the-money straddles written on the CAC 40 index as a proxy for systematic volatility risk, I document significant differences between volatility factor loadings of value and growth stocks. Furthermore, when markets are classified into expected booms and recessions, volatility factor loadings are also time-varying. When expected market risk premium is above its average, i.e. during expected recessions, value stocks are seen riskier than their growth counterparts. This implies in bad times, investors shift their preferences away from value firms. Instead they use growth stocks as hedges against deteriorations in their wealth during those times. The findings are in line with the predictions of rational asset pricing theory and support a “flight-to-quality” explanation.     

Profitability and investment‐based factor pricing models

Ex ante predictors of stock returns must exhibit explanatory power across the feasible set of investments. But empirical results of factor pricing models that incorporate firm investment and profitability cannot explain the apparently high returns of US small stocks with very high investment levels and very low profitability. Whilst these stocks comprise only a small fraction of US data sets, this is not the case across global markets. Using a data set that is concentrated with stocks that exhibit high investment despite low profitability, we demonstrate that such factor models are limited in their explanatory power over these stocks.     

Another look at trading costs and short-term reversal profits

Several studies report that abnormal returns associated with short-term reversal investment strategies diminish once trading costs are taken into account. We show that the impact of trading costs on the strategies’ profitability can largely be attributed to excessively trading in small cap stocks. Limiting the stock universe to large cap stocks significantly reduces trading costs. Applying a more sophisticated portfolio construction algorithm to lower turnover reduces trading costs even further. Our finding that reversal strategies generate 30-50 basis points per week net of trading costs poses a serious challenge to standard rational asset pricing models. Our findings also have important implications for the understanding and practical implementation of reversal strategies.     

Stock Valuation and Learning about Profitability

We develop a simple approach to valuing stocks in the presence of learning about average profitability. The market‐to‐book ratio (M/B) increases with uncertainty about average profitability, especially for firms that pay no dividends. M/B is predicted to decline over a firm's lifetime due to learning, with steeper decline when the firm is young. These predictions are confirmed empirically. Data also support the predictions that younger stocks and stocks that pay no dividends have more volatile returns. Firm profitability has become more volatile recently, helping explain the puzzling increase in average idiosyncratic return volatility observed over the past few decades.     

Pricing assets with stochastic cash-flow growth

We model the time series behavior of dividend growth rates, as well as the profitability rate, with a variety of autoregressive moving-average processes, and use the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to derive the appropriate discount rate. One of the most important implications of this research is that the rate of return beta changes with the time to maturity of the expected cash flow, and the degree of mean reversion displayed by the growth rate. We explore the consequences of this observation for three different strands of the literature. The first is for the value premium anomaly, the second for stock valuation and learning about long-run profitability, and the third is for the St. Petersburg paradox. One of the most surprising results is that the CAPM implies a higher rate of return beta for value stocks than growth stocks. Therefore, value stocks must have higher expected returns, and this is what is required theoretically in order to explain the well-known value premium anomaly.     

The other side of value: The gross profitability premium

Profitability, measured by gross profits-to-assets, has roughly the same power as book-to-market predicting the cross section of average returns. Profitable firms generate significantly higher returns than unprofitable firms, despite having significantly higher valuation ratios. Controlling for profitability also dramatically increases the performance of value strategies, especially among the largest, most liquid stocks. These results are difficult to reconcile with popular explanations of the value premium, as profitable firms are less prone to distress, have longer cash flow durations, and have lower levels of operating leverage. Controlling for gross profitability explains most earnings related anomalies and a wide range of seemingly unrelated profitable trading strategies.     

The relationship between short interest and stock returns in the Canadian market

This paper provides new insight into the relationship between short sales and stock market returns using a sample of stocks sold short in Canada. Short interest is defined in relation to trading volume. The results strongly support the assertion that short sales and excess returns are contemporaneously negatively correlated in Canada. The paper further finds that excess returns are more negative for small firms because the supply of shortable shares is constrained for these firms. Excess returns are less negative for stocks with associated options and convertible bonds. Importantly, the evidence is consistent with the proposition that informed traders short sell Canadian interlisted stocks in Canada, rather than the US, to exploit lower execution costs. Together the results suggest that less restrictive regulation of short sales will improve the efficiency of markets.     

How Does Size Affect Mutual Fund Behavior?

If actively managed mutual funds suffer from diminishing returns to scale, funds should alter investment behavior as assets under management increase. Although asset growth has little effect on the behavior of the typical fund, we find that large funds and small‐cap funds diversify their portfolios in response to growth. Greater diversification, especially for small‐cap funds, is associated with better performance. Fund family growth is related to the introduction of new funds that hold different stocks from their existing siblings. Funds with many siblings diversify less rapidly as they grow, suggesting that the fund family may influence a fund's portfolio strategy.