Size,value and momentum in stock returns: evidence from India

This paper examines the effects of size, value and momentum on the cross-sectional relation between expected returns and risk in the Indian stock market. We find that the conditional Carhart four-factor model empirically describes the variation of cross-section of return better than the unconditional model. When size, book-to-market and momentum effects are controlled in the conditional model, the positive relation of market beta, book-to-market and momentum with expected returns remains economically and statistically significant. However, this evidence is found to be subject to characteristics of test portfolios. The expected returns are sensitive to changes in predictive macroeconomic variables.     

Can stochastic discount factor models explain the cross-section of equity returns?

We propose a multivariate test of the capital asset pricing model (C-CAPM) of the cross-sectional variation in equity returns in which we compare cross-sectional variation in equity returns to the cross-sectional variation in their conditional covariance with stochastic discount factors. We use a multivariate generalized heteroskedasticity in mean model to estimate 25 portfolios that are formed on size and the book-to-market ratio. Each portfolio is allowed to have its own no-arbitrage condition. We find that although the conditional covariances of returns with consumption exhibit negative variation across size, they do not vary across the book-to-market ratio. Thus, C-CAPM can capture the size effect, but not the value effect. The fit is, however, improved by allowing the coefficients on the consumption covariances to be different. The value effect appears to be associated with the book-to-market ratio as well as size. On its own the book-to-market ratio does not generate additional information about average returns to C-CAPM. A possible explanation for these findings is that both small and low book-to-market ratio firms are expected to have higher rates of growth.     

Default risk and equity returns: Australian evidence

We test whether default risk is related to equity returns using the Fama and MacBeth [Fama, E.F., MacBeth, J., 1973. Risk, return, and equilibrium: empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 81, 607–636.] regression framework. The proxy we use for default risk is the default probability obtained from option-based models. Our findings show that default probability is negatively related to returns. While we find that size and book-to-market are related to default risk, the ability of these variables to explain cross-sectional variation in returns is not because they are proxying default risk. Further, our evidence suggests that the negative relationship between default probability and returns is not due to a leverage, volatility or momentum effect.     

Effects of the Boxing Day tsunami on the world capital markets

The effects of the Boxing Day tsunami on the world equity markets are investigated in this paper. In particular, this paper examines how the risks and returns of industry and market portfolios are altered as a result of the tsunami. The analysis includes countries that were directly or indirectly exposed to this catastrophe. Both parametric and non-parametric tests are employed to explore the relationship between equity stock returns and the tsunami, and the CAPM is utilised to assess the variation in systematic risks. Given that the literature in this area is at its earliest stage, we draw on economic theories of flooding. In this way, our results are consistent with that of the flooding literature, which would predict that the Boxing Day tsunami would have minimal effects on the risks and returns of equity markets. This paper documents that the tsunami was associated with few abnormal return changes and a general increase in the long-term systematic risk of the equity portfolios in the study.     

The cross-section of equity returns and assets’ fundamental cash-flow risk

The decomposition of consumption beta into a component driven by assets’ cash-flow news and one related to assets’ discount-rate news reveals that macroeconomic risks embodied in cash flows largely account for the cross-sectional dynamics of average stock returns. Empirically, we find that differences in expected excess returns between low book-to-market and high book-to-market portfolios are associated with differences in their cash-flow betas, and thus reflect macroeconomic, especially consumption-related risks. This result holds true for a broad set of consumption-based asset pricing models. In addition, the results indicate that the risk premium on equity markets is primarily driven by the exposure of assets’ cash-flow components to the cyclical variability of durable consumption goods.     

An Empirical Re-Examination of the Cross-Section of Expected Returns: UK Evidence

This paper is a study of the Fama and French (1992) analysis in the UK context. Consistent with their findings, our results do not support a positive relationship between beta and average monthly returns. We find that book-to-market equity and market leverage are consistently significant in explaining UK average returns. Contrary to the Fama-French evidence, size has an insignificant effect on average returns. A puzzling negative beta-returns relationship is found in some monthly regressions,and results based on annual data reveal a reversal of betas for the smallest-size portfolios. Some possible explanations are offered for these findings.     

Liquidity risk,leverage and long-run IPO returns

We examine the risk-return characteristics of a rolling portfolio investment strategy where more than 6000 Nasdaq initial public offering (IPO) stocks are bought and held for up to 5 years. The average long-run portfolio return is low, but IPO stocks appear as “longshots”, as 5-year buy-and-hold returns of 1000% or more are somewhat more frequent than for non-issuing Nasdaq firms matched on size and book-to-market ratio. The typical IPO firm is of average Nasdaq market capitalization but has relatively low book-to-market ratio. We also show that IPO firms exhibit relatively high stock turnover and low leverage, which may lower systematic risk exposures. To examine this possibility, we launch an easily constructed “low-minus-high” (LMH) stock turnover portfolio as a liquidity risk factor. The LMH factor produces significant betas for broad-based stock portfolios, as well as for our IPO portfolio and a comparison portfolio of seasoned equity offerings. The factor-model estimation also includes standard characteristic-based risk factors, and we explore mimicking portfolios for leverage-related macroeconomic risks. Because they track macroeconomic aggregates, these mimicking portfolios are relatively immune to market sentiment effects. Overall, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the realized return on the IPO portfolio is commensurable with the portfolio's risk exposures, as defined here.     

Why does book-to-market value of equity forecast cross-section stock returns?

In this paper, we derive a model of book-to-market value of equity based on the present value model and estimate it using panel data on individual stocks. We explicitly include in the model all the determinants of book-to-market except the firm-specific discount rate, which we capture using fixed individual effects in the panel data model. The model is particularly successful, explaining nearly 90% of the time series and cross-section variation in the ratio of book-to-market value of equity. Moreover, the estimated firm-specific fixed effects are more successful than the most recent book-to-market value of equity in forecasting subsequent returns. This is consistent with an efficient market in which book-to-market is a proxy for risk.     

Beta,size, book-to-market equity and returns: A study based on UK data

This paper examines the role of beta, size and book-to-market equity as competing risk measurements in explaining the cross-sectional returns of UK securities for the period July 1980 through June 2000. The methodology of [Fama, E., French, K., 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47, 427–467] and [Pettengill, G., Sundaram, S., Mathur, I., 1995. The conditional relation between beta and returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30, 101–116] is adopted. Results show that, when adopting the methodology of [Pettengill, G., Sundaram, S., Mathur, I., 1995. The conditional relation between beta and returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30, 101–116], where data is segmented between up and down markets, a significant relationship is found between beta and returns even in the presence of size and book-to-market equity. Size is not found to be a significant risk variable, whereas book-to-market equity is found to be priced by the market and is thus a significant determinant of security returns. This is the case irrespective of the methodology adopted.     

Empirical tests of the float-adjusted return model

This paper implements empirical tests of the recently proposed float-adjusted return model by using Chinese stock-market data. The results show that variation in free float can explain cross-sectional variation in asset returns by about 6.7% annually, after we control for market risk, size, and book-to-market equity. In addition, we also find that size and book-to-market equity help explain cross-sectional variations in returns even after controlling for free float.     

Growth to value: Option exercise and the cross section of equity returns

We propose a general equilibrium model to study the link between the cross section of expected returns and book-to-market characteristics. We model two primitive assets: value assets and growth assets that are options on assets in place. The cost of option exercise, which is endogenously determined in equilibrium, is highly procyclical and acts as a hedge against risks in assets in place. Consequently, growth options are less risky than value assets, and the model features a value premium. Our model incorporates long-run risks in aggregate consumption and replicates the empirical failure of the conditional capital asset pricing model (CAPM) prediction. The model also quantitatively accounts for the pattern in mean returns on book-to-market sorted portfolios, the magnitude of the CAPM-alphas, and other stylized features of the cross-sectional data.     

Security returns, beta, size, and book-to-market equity: evidence from the Shanghai A-share market

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the cross-sectional relationship between security returns and beta, size and book-to-market equity in the Shanghai A-share market. This study takes place during the period January 1997–December 2006. The methodology of Fama and French (J Finance 51:55–84, 1992) and Pettengill et al. (J Financial Quant Anal 30:101–116, 1995) is adopted. The Results show no evidence of an unconditional relationship between beta and returns. However, a conditional relationship is found when the data is split into up and down markets. The relationship holds even in the presence of size and book-to-market equity. Both size and book-to-market equity is found to be priced by the market and thereby regarded as significant determinants of security returns.     

Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests

If asset returns have systematic skewness, expected returns should include rewards for accepting this risk. We formalize this intuition with an asset pricing model that incorporates conditional skewness. Our results show that conditional skewness helps explain the cross-sectional variation of expected returns across assets and is significant even when factors based on size and book-to-market are included. Systematic skewness is economically important and commands a risk premium, on average, of 3.60 percent per year. Our results suggest that the momentum effect is related to systematic skewness. The low expected return momentum portfolios have higher skewness than high expected return portfolios.     

When bonds matter: Home bias in goods and assets

This paper presents a model of international portfolios with real exchange rate and non-financial risks that account for observed levels of equity home bias. Bonds matter: in equilibrium, investors structure their bond portfolio to hedge real exchange rate risks. Equity home bias arises when non-financial income risk is negatively correlated with equity returns, after controlling for bond returns. Our framework allows us to derive equilibrium bond and equity portfolios in terms of directly measurable hedge ratios. An empirical application to G-7 countries finds strong empirical support for the theory. We are able to account for a significant share of the equity home bias and obtain an aggregate currency exposure of bond portfolios comparable to the data.     

Comoment risk and stock returns

We estimate investable comoment equity risk premiums for the US markets. The stock's contribution to the asymmetry and the fat tails of the market portfolio's payoff are priced into a coskewness premium and a cokurtosis premium. We construct zero-investment strategies that are long and short in coskewness and cokurtosis equity risks; we infer from the spread the returns attached to a unit exposure to US equity coskewness and cokurtosis. The coskewness and cokurtosis premiums present positive monthly average returns of 0.27% and 0.14% from January 1959 to December 2011. Comoment risks appear to be significantly priced within the US stock market and display significant explanatory power regarding the US size and book-to-market effects. The premiums do not subsume, but rather complement the empirical capital asset pricing model. Our analysis relies on data collected from CRSP (Chicago Research Center for Security Prices) over December 1955 to December 2011. To our knowledge, the paper is the first to propose investable higher-moment risk factors over such an extensive time period.     

Monetary Policy and the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns

Ample evidence shows that size and book-to-market equity explain significant cross-sectional variation in stock returns, whereas beta explains little or none of the variation. Recent studies also demonstrate that proxies for monetary stringency increase the explained variation in stock returns. We reexamine a three-factor model that includes beta, size, and book-to-market equity, while allowing monetary conditions to influence the relations between these risk factors and average stock returns. We find that ex-ante proxies for monetary stringency significantly influence the relations between stock returns and all three risk factors. Additionally, all three variables are found to contribute significantly to explaining cross-sectional returns in a three-factor model that includes the monetary sector.     

The relationship between size,book-to-market equity ratio,earnings–price ratio,and return for the Hong Kong stock market

In this paper, we investigate the relation between stock returns and β, size (ME), leverage, book-to-market equity ratio, and earnings–price ratio (E/P) in Hong Kong stock market using the Fama and French (FF) [J. Finance 47 (1992) 427] approach. FF find that two variables, size and book-to-market equity, combine to capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns associated with β, size, leverage, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios. In this paper, similar to previous studies in Hong Kong and US stock markets, we find that β is unable to explain the average monthly returns on stocks continuously listed in Hong Kong Stock Exchange for the period July 1984–June 1997. But three of the variables, size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios, seem able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns over the period. The other two variables, book leverage and market, are also able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns. But their effects seem to be dominated by size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios, and considered to be redundant in explaining average returns when size, book-to-market equity, and E/P ratios are also considered. The results are consistent across subperiods, across months, and across size groups. These suggest that the results are not driven by extreme observations or abnormal return behavior in some of the months or by size groups.     

THE EFFECT OF SIZE,BOOK-TO-MARKET EQUITY,PRIOR RETURNS,AND BETA ON STOCK RETURNS: JANUARY VERSUS THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR

Size and book-to-market equity are shown to transcend beta in explaining stock returns. One possible explanation of the book-to-market equity effect is overreaction. We investigate the effect of size, book-to-market equity, prior returns, and beta on stock returns. We find significant reversals in January consistent with overreaction. We find a strong positive relation between returns and prior returns for February through December. Both patterns are distinct from either a size or book-to-market equity effect. Book-to-market equity is significantly related to returns, with some evidence of a stronger effect in January.     

Tracking down distress risk

This paper shows that exposure to aggregate distress risk is the underlying source of the premiums for the Fama-French size (SMB) and value (HML) factors. Using a unique data set of aggregate business failures of both private and public firms from 1926 to 1997, I build portfolios that track news about future firm failures. These tracking portfolios optimally hedge aggregate distress risk and earn a Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) alpha of approximately −4% a year. Both HML and SMB predict changes in future failure rates. Small stocks have lower returns than large stocks and value stocks have lower returns than growth stocks when the market expects an increase in future failure rates. Finally, a two-factor model with the market and the tracking portfolio for aggregate distress as factors does as well as the Fama-French three-factor model in pricing the 25 size and book-to-market sorted portfolios.     

An International Dynamic Asset Pricing Model

We examine the ability of a dynamic asset-pricing model to explain the returns on G7-country stock market indices. We extend Campbell's (1996) asset-pricing model to investigate international equity returns. We also utilize and evaluate recent evidence on the predictability of stock returns. We find some evidence for the role of hedging demands in explaining stock returns and compare the predictions of the dynamic model to those from the static CAPM. Both models fail in their predictions of average returns on portfolios of high book-to-market stocks across countries.