Asymmetric risk premium in value and growth stocks

There are two competing explanations for the existence of a value premium, a rational market risk explanation, whereby value stocks are inherently more risky than growth stocks, and a market over-reaction hypothesis, where agents overstate future returns on growth stock. Using asymmetric GARCH-M models this paper tests the predictions of the two hypotheses. Specifically, examining whether returns exhibit a positive (negative) risk premium resulting from a negative (positive) shock and the relative size of any premium. The results of the paper suggest that following a shock, volatility and expected future volatility are heightened, leading to a rise in required rates of return which depresses current prices. Further, these effects are heightened for value stock over growth stock and for negative shocks over positive shocks. Thus, in support of the rational risk interpretation, with a volatility feedback explanation for predictive volatility asymmetry.     

Downside Risk

Economists have long recognized that investors care differentlyabout downside losses versus upside gains. Agents who placegreater weight on downside risk demand additional compensationfor holding stocks with high sensitivities to downside marketmovements. We show that the cross section of stock returns reflectsa downside risk premium of approximately 6% per annum. Stocksthat covary strongly with the market during market declineshave high average returns. The reward for beasring downsiderisk is not simply compensation for regular market beta, noris it explained by coskewness or liquidity risk, or by size,value, and momentum characteristics. (JEL C12, C15, C32, G12)     

Conditional interest rate risk and the cross‐section of excess stock returns

Differences in excess stock returns can be rationalized by their sensitivities to conditional interest rate risk. Value stocks are particularly sensitive to upside movements in interest rate growth, while growth stocks react strongly to downside movements in interest rate growth. Consistent with the basic asset pricing theory, the upside interest rate risk commands a negative premium which is higher than the premium associated with the downside interest rate risk. Upside beta pertains its explanatory power after controlling for exposure to regular unconditional interest rate and various sources of financial and conditional macroeconomic risk.     

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.     

Conditional extreme risk,black swan hedging,and asset prices

Motivated by the asset pricing theory with safety-first preference, we introduce and operationalize a conditional extreme risk (CER) measure to describe expected stock performance conditional on a small-probability market downturn (black swan). We document a significant CER premium in the cross-section of expected returns. We also demonstrate that CER explains the premia to downside beta, coskewness, and cokurtosis. CER provides distinct information regarding black swan hedging that cannot be captured by co-crash-based tail dependence measures. As we find that the pricing effect is stronger among black swan hedging stocks, this distinction helps explain the absence of premium to tail dependence.     

Correlation and return dispersion dynamics in Chinese markets

This paper studies the relation between firm-level return dispersions and correlations among Chinese stocks during periods of unusually large upward and downward swings. We analyze individual stock returns across 18 sectors and test if return dispersions and stock correlations show asymmetric patterns for extreme up and down markets. Evidence from studies on U.S. stocks suggests that equity return correlations tend to be much greater on the downside than on the upside and that the degree of comovement gets even stronger during extreme market states. However, in the case of Chinese stock market, we find that higher downside correlations apply to only stocks within the Financial sector. With the exception of Financial stocks, we find that stock correlations are significantly higher during up markets, rather than down markets. Regarding firm-level return dispersions, our findings are consistent with rational asset pricing model predictions. We find that equity return dispersions are significantly higher during periods of large price changes.     

Downside risk of international stock returns

This paper investigates the downside risk exposure of international stock returns in 14 major industrialized economies around the world. For the period 1975–2010, we find that differences in returns on value and growth portfolios can be rationalized by assets’ reagibilities to market’s downside shocks. International value stocks are particularly sensitive to market’s permanent downside shocks, while international growth stocks are particularly sensitive to market’s temporary downside shocks. In line with recent evidence for the US, risk associated with unfavorable changes in market’s cash-flow innovations carries a premium which is pervasive and statistically significant.     

Downside Risk in Emerging Markets

This paper investigates the relation between downside risk and expected returns on the aggregate stock market in an international context. Nonparametric and parametric value at risk are used as measures of downside risk to determine the existence of a risk-return trade-off. For emerging markets, fixed effects panel data regressions provide evidence for a significantly positive relationship between monthly expected market returns and downside risk. This result is robust after controlling for aggregate dividend yield and price-to-fundamental ratios. The relationship between expected returns and downside risk is weaker for developed markets and vanishes when control variables are included in the specification.     

Asymmetric Volatility,Skewness, and Downside Risk in Different Asset Classes: Evidence from Futures Markets

This study examines the cross‐sectional variation of futures returns from different asset classes. The monthly returns are positively correlated with downside risk and negatively correlated with coskewness. The asymmetric volatility effect generates negatively skewed returns. Assets with high coskewness and low downside betas provide hedges against market downside risk and offer low returns. The high returns offered by assets with low coskewness and high downside betas are a risk premium for bearing downside risk. The asset pricing model that incorporates downside risk partially explains the futures returns. The results indicate a unified risk perspective to jointly price different asset classes.     

Cross-sectional dispersion and expected returns

This study investigates whether the cross-sectional dispersion of stock returns, which reflects the aggregate level of idiosyncratic risk in the market, represents a priced state variable. We find that stocks with high sensitivities to dispersion offer low expected returns. Furthermore, a zero-cost spread portfolio that is long (short) in stocks with low (high) dispersion betas produces a statistically and economically significant return. Dispersion is associated with a significantly negative risk premium in the cross section (–1.32% per annum) which is distinct from premia commanded by alternative systematic factors. These results are robust to stock characteristics and market conditions.     

Value-at-risk and the cross section of emerging market hedge fund returns

This paper examines the cross-sectional relationship between downside risk (Value at Risk) and expected returns in a sample of 1370 emerging market hedge funds (EMHF). We find that downside risk significantly drives expected returns for these funds, particularly before the global financial crisis, commanding an annual risk premium of over 12%. While EMHF differ from their advanced market counterparts in risk/return patterns, we show that the global financial crisis of 2008 has caused a structural shift in that pattern. Finally, we show that the risk premium associated with downside risk is predictable by the global financial cycle, even after we control for emerging market systematic risk factors.     

Rewards for downside risk in Asian markets

Distributional properties of emerging market returns may impact on investor ability and willingness to diversify. Investors may also place greater weighting on downside losses, compared to upside gains. Using individual equities in a range of emerging Asian markets, we investigate the potential contribution of downside risk measures to explain asset pricing in these markets. As realized returns are used as a proxy for expected returns, we separately examine conditional returns in upturn and downturn periods, in order to successfully identify risk and return relationships. Results indicate that co-skewness and downside beta are priced by investors. Further testing confirms a separate premium for each measure, confirming that they capture different aspects of downside risk. Robustness tests indicate that, when combined with other risk measures, both retain their explanatory power. Tests also indicate that co-skewness may be the more robust measure.     

A novel downside beta and expected stock returns

A number of studies have found that the cross-section of stock returns reflects a risk premium for bearing downside beta; however, existing measures of downside beta have poor power for predicting returns. This paper proposes a novel measure of downside beta, the ES-implied beta, to improve the prediction of the cross-section of asset returns. The ES-implied beta explains stock returns over the same period as well as the widely used downside beta, but improves the prediction for future returns due to its high persistence. In the empirical analysis, the widely used downside beta shows a weak relation with future expected returns, but the ES-implied beta implies a statistically and economically significant risk premium of 0.6% per month and explains 0.6% of the variation in the cross-sectional returns. The effect cannot be explained by traditional cross-sectional effects and is different from the CAPM beta, the downside beta in Ang et al. (2006), coskewness, and cokurtosis.     

Reexamining the Robustness of the Market Value of Equity

We apply the methodology of Knez and Ready (KR) (1997) to data from the Japanese stock market and reexamine the robustness of the risk premium for the market value of equity (MVE). In particular, we compare two alternative explanations for the relation between stock returns and MVE: the one pointed out by Fama and French (FF) (1992) and the other proposed by Berk (1995). Consistent with results for the U.S. market, when we check FF's explanation for MVE, we find that the risk premium for MVE is not robust against extreme observations. Besides the evidence supporting KR's findings, we study the role of MVE proposed by Berk (1995), who points out that under controlled expected cash flows, MVE will be negatively correlated with expected returns. After showing that MVE negatively correlates with risk in the presence of expected cash flows, we test the robustness of the relation between returns and MVE. We find that the estimated risk premium for MVE is robust when realized cash flows (earnings plus depreciation) or book value of equity (BE) is used as a proxy for expected cash flows.     

The relation between stock returns and short-term interest rates

This study examines the relation between the expected returns on common stocks and short-term interest rates. Using a two-factor model of stock returns, we show that the expected returns on common stocks are systematically related to the market risk and the interest-rate risk, which are estimated as the sensitivity of common-stock excess returns to the excess return on the equally weighted market index and to the federal fund premium, respectively. We find that the interest-rate risk for small firms is a significant source of investors' portfolio risk, but is not properly reflected in the single-factor market risk. We also find that the interest-rate risk for large firms is “negative” in the sense that the market risk estimated from the single-factor model overstates the true risk of large firms. An application of the Fama-MacBeth methodology indicates that the interest-rate risk premium as well as the market's risk premium are significant, implying that both the market risk and the interest-rate risk are priced. We show that the interest-rate risk premium explains a significant portion of the difference in expected returns between the top quintile and the bottom quintile of the NYSE and AMEX firms. We also show that the turn-of-the-year seasonal is observed for the interest-rate risk premium; however, the risk premium for the rest of the year is still significant, although small in mangitude.     

Are extreme returns priced in the stock market? European evidence

This paper revisits some recently found evidence in the literature on the cross-section of stock returns for a carefully constructed dataset of euro area stocks. First, we confirm recent results for US data and find evidence of a negative cross-sectional relation between extreme positive returns and average returns after controlling for characteristics such as momentum, book-to-market, size, liquidity and short term return reversal. We argue that this is the case because these stocks have lottery-like characteristics, which is attractive to certain investors. Also, these stocks tend to be very volatile so that arbitrageurs are discouraged from correcting potential mispricing. As a consequence, these stocks are often overpriced and hence face lower expected returns. Second, when we control for extreme returns, the recently found negative relationship between idiosyncratic risk and future returns is less robust. In our models, after adding maximum returns, the relationship is insignificant and sometimes even positive. We also find that idiosyncratic skewness and coskewness play an important role for asset pricing, as predicted by several theoretical models.     

Life Insurer Cost of Equity with Asymmetric Risk Factors

This study presents an improved model for estimating life insurer cost of capital with the inclusion of upside and downside risk factors and controlling for life insurer characteristics. Although various asymmetric measures of market risk have been shown to be priced factors for the broader equity market, life insurer realized equity returns include a much larger premium for bearing downside risk, even after controlling for firm characteristics and other measures of risk. Cross‐sectional regression analysis finds a positive (negative) premium for downside (upside) betas, conditional on down and up markets, respectively. Coskewness and cokurtosis are also priced factors.     

The Variation of Economic Risk Premiums in Real Estate Returns

We examine the predictable components of returns on stocks, bonds, and real estate investment trusts (REITs). We employ a multiple-beta asset pricing model and find that there are varying degrees of predictability among stocks, bonds, and REITs. Furthermore, we find that most of the predictability of returns is associated with the economic variables employed in the asset pricing model. The stock market risk premium is highly important in capturing the predictable variation in stock portfolios, and the bond market risk premiums (term and risk structure of interest rates) are important in capturing the predictable variation in bond portfolios. For REITs, however, both the stock and bond market risk premiums capture the predictable variation in returns. REITs have comparable return predictability to stock portfolios. We conclude that there is an important economic risk premium for REITs that are not captured by traditional multiple-beta asset pricing models.     

Idiosyncratic volatility and equity returns: UK evidence

The proposition that idiosyncratic volatility may matter in asset pricing is currently a topic of research and controversy. Using data from the UK market we examine the predictive ability of various measures of idiosyncratic risk and provide evidence which suggests that: (a) it is the idiosyncratic volatility of small capitalization stocks that matters for asset pricing and (b) that small stocks idiosyncratic volatility predicts the small capitalization premium component of market returns and is unrelated to either the market or the value premium. The predictive power of the aggregate idiosyncratic volatility of small stocks remains intact even after we control for the possible proxying effects of business cycle fluctuations and liquidity and is robust across time and different econometric specifications.     

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.