High Idiosyncratic Volatility and Low Returns: A Prospect Theory Explanation

The well‐documented negative relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns is puzzling if investors are risk‐averse. However, under prospect theory, while investors are risk‐averse in the domain of gains, they exhibit risk‐seeking behavior in the domain of losses. Consistent with risk‐seeking investors’ preference for high‐volatility stocks in the loss domain, we find that the negative relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns is concentrated in stocks with unrealized capital losses, but is nonexistent in stocks with unrealized capital gains. This finding is robust to control for short‐term return reversals and maximum daily return, among other variables.     

The Risk Microstructure of Corporate Bonds: A Case Study from the German Corporate Bond Market

This article presents joint econometric analysis of interest rate risk, issuer‐specific risk (credit risk) and bond‐specific risk (liquidity risk) in a reduced‐form framework. We estimate issuer‐specific and bond‐specific risk from corporate bond data in the German market. We find that bond‐specific risk plays a crucial role in the pricing of corporate bonds. We observe substantial differences between different bonds with respect to the relative influence of issuer‐specific vs. bond‐specific spread on the level and the volatility of the total spread. Issuer‐specific risk exhibits strong autocorrelation and a strong impact of weekday effects, the level of the risk‐free term structure and the debt to value ratio. Moreover, we can observe some impact of the stock market volatility, the respective stock's return and the distance to default. For the bond‐specific risk we find strong autocorrelation, some impact of the stock market index, the stock market volatility, weekday effects and monthly effects as well as a very weak impact of the risk‐free term structure and the specific stock's return. Altogether, the determinants of the spread components vary strongly between different bonds/issuers.     

ESTIMATING EXPECTED EXCESS RETURNS USING HISTORICAL AND OPTION‐IMPLIED VOLATILITY

We test the relation between expected and realized excess returns for the S&P 500 index from January 1994 through December 2003 using the proportional reward‐to‐risk measure to estimate expected returns. When risk is measured by historical volatility, we find no relation between expected and realized excess returns. In contrast, when risk is measured by option‐implied volatility, we find a positive and significant relation between expected and realized excess returns in the 1994–1998 subperiod. In the 1999–2003 subperiod, the option‐implied volatility risk measure yields a positive, but statistically insignificant, risk‐return relation. We attribute this performance difference to the fact that, in the 1994–1998 subperiod, return volatility was lower and the average return was much higher than in the 1999–2003 subperiod, thereby increasing the signal‐to‐noise ratio in the latter subperiod.     

Idiosyncratic Volatility Covariance and Expected Stock Returns

Given that the idiosyncratic volatility (IDVOL) of individual stocks co‐varies, we develop a model to determine how aggregate idiosyncratic volatility (AIV) may affect the volatility of a portfolio with a finite number of stocks. In portfolio and cross‐sectional tests, we find that stocks whose returns are more correlated with AIV innovations have lower returns than those that are less correlated with AIV innovations. These results are robust to controlling for the stock's own IDVOL and market volatility. We conclude that risk‐averse investors pay a premium for stocks that pay well when AIV is high, consistent with our model.     

The return impact of realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility

We show that the negative relation between realized idiosyncratic volatility, measured over the prior month, and returns is robust in non-January months. Controlling for realized idiosyncratic volatility, we show that the relation between returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility is positive and robust. Realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility are separate and important effects describing the cross-section of returns. We find the negative return on a zero-investment portfolio that is long high realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks and short low realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks is dependent on aggregate investor sentiment. In cross-sectional tests, we find the negative relation is weaker for stocks with a large analyst following and stronger for stocks with high dispersion of analyst forecasts. The positive relation between expected idiosyncratic volatility and returns is not due to mispricing.     

Volatility components, leverage effects, and the return-volatility relations

This paper investigates the risk-return trade-off by taking into account the model specification problem. Market volatility is modeled to have two components, one due to the diffusion risk and the other due to the jump risk. The model implies Merton’s ICAPM in the absence of leverage effects, whereas the return-volatility relations are determined by interactions between risk premia and leverage effects in the presence of leverage effects. Empirically, I find a robust negative relationship between the expected excess return and the jump volatility and a robust negative relationship between the expected excess return and the unexpected diffusion volatility. The latter provides an indirect evidence of the positive relationship between the expected excess return and the diffusion volatility.     

EXPECTED VOLATILITY,UNEXPECTED VOLATILITY,AND THE CROSS‐SECTION OF STOCK RETURNS

The existing literature finds conflicting results on the cross‐sectional relation between expected returns and idiosyncratic volatility. We contend that at the firm level, the sample correlation between unexpected returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility can cloud the true relation between the expected return and expected idiosyncratic volatility. We show strong evidence that unexpected idiosyncratic volatility is positively related to unexpected returns. Using unexpected idiosyncratic volatility to control for unexpected returns, we find expected idiosyncratic volatility to be significantly and positively related to expected returns. This result holds after controlling for various firm characteristics, and it is robust across different sample periods.     

Trading activity and bid–ask spreads of individual equity options

We empirically examine the impact of trading activities on the liquidity of individual equity options measured by the proportional bid–ask spread. There are three main findings. First, the option return volatility, defined as the option price elasticity times the stock return volatility, has a much higher power in explaining the spread variations than the commonly considered liquidity determinants such as the stock return volatility and option trading volume. Second, after controlling for all the liquidity determinants, we find a maturity-substitution effect due to expiration cycles. When medium-term options (60–90 days maturity) are not available, traders use short-term options as substitutes whose higher volume leads to a smaller bid–ask spread or better liquidity. Third, we also find a moneyness-substitution effect induced by the stock return volatility. When the stock return volatility goes up, trading shifts from in-the-money options to out-of-the-money options, causing the latter’s spread to narrow.     

Overconfidence among option traders

The investor overconfidence theory predicts a direct relationship between market‐wide turnover and lagged market return. However, previous research has examined this prediction in the equity market, we focus on trading in the options market. Controlling for stock market cross‐sectional volatility, stock idiosyncratic risk, and option market volatility, we find that option trading turnover is positively related to past stock market return. In addition, call option turnover and call to put ratio are also positively associated with the past stock market return. These findings are consistent with the overconfidence theory. We also find that overconfident investors trade more in the options market than in the equity market. We rule out explanations other than investor overconfidence, such as momentum trading and varying risk preferences, for our findings.     

Idiosyncratic Volatility and Firm‐Specific News: Beyond Limited Arbitrage

We examine the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and returns around news announcements. Mispricing is most likely to occur during news announcements. If idiosyncratic volatility generates a limit to arbitrage, then the negative relation between returns and news volatility should be stronger than the relation to nonnews volatility. Instead, we find nonnews volatility has a robust negative relation to returns and lacks key features expected if volatility were a reflection of limits to arbitrage. Pricing of nonnews volatility is related to lottery‐like features of a stock's return. Our results suggest that volatility has a price effect beyond a limit to arbitrage.     

STOCK RETURNS AND VOLATILITY ON CHINA'S STOCK MARKETS

We examine time‐series features of stock returns and volatility, as well as the relation between return and volatility in four of China's stock exchanges. Variance ratio tests reject the hypothesis that stock returns follow a random walk. We find evidence of long memory of returns. Application of GARCH and EGARCH models provides strong evidence of time‐varying volatility and shows volatility is highly persistent and predictable. The results of GARCH‐M do not show any relation between expected returns and expected risk. Daily trading volume used as a proxy for information arrival time has no significant explanatory power for the conditional volatility of daily returns. JEL classification: G15     

A behavioural explanation to the asymmetric volatility phenomenon: Evidence from market volatility index

This study examines how the behavioural explanations, in particular loss aversion, can be used to explain the asymmetric volatility phenomenon by investigating the relationship between stock market returns and changes in investor perceptions of risk measured by the volatility index. We study the behaviour of India volatility index vis‐à‐vis Hong Kong, Australia and UK volatility index, and provide a comprehensive comparative analysis. Using Bai‐Perron test, we identify structural breaks and volatility regimes in the time series of volatility index, and investigate the volatility index‐return relation during high, medium and low volatility periods. Regardless of volatility regimes, we find that volatility index moves in opposite direction in response to stock index returns, and contemporaneous return is the most dominating across the four markets. The negative relation is strongest for UK followed by Australia, Hong Kong and India. Second, volatility index reacts significantly different to positive and negative returns; negative return has higher impact on changes in volatility index than positive return across the markets over full‐sample and sub‐sample periods. The asymmetric effect is stronger in low volatility regime than in high and medium volatility periods for all the markets except UK. The strength of asymmetric effect is strongest for Hong Kong and weakest for India. Finally, negative returns have exponentially increasing effect and positive returns have exponentially decreasing effect on the changes in volatility index.     

Variance-ratio Statistics and High-frequency Data: Testing for Changes in Intraday Volatility Patterns

Variance-ratio tests are routinely employed to assess the variation in return volatility over time and across markets. However, such tests are not statistically robust and can be seriously misleading within a high-frequency context. We develop improved inference procedures using a Fourier Flexible Form regression framework. The practical significance is illustrated through tests for changes in the FX intraday volatility pattern following the removal of trading restrictions in Tokyo. Contrary to earlier evidence, we find nodiscernible changes outside of the Tokyo lunch period. We ascribe the difference to the fragile finite-sample inference of conventional variance-ratio procedures and a single outlier.     

Explaining the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle using Stochastic Discount Factors

I use Stochastic Discount Factors to examine the sources of the idiosyncratic volatility premium. I find that non-zero risk aversion and firms’ non-systematic coskewness determine the premium on idiosyncratic volatility risk. The firm’s non-systematic coskewness measures the comovement of the asset’s volatility with the market return. When I control for the non-systematic coskewness factor, I find no significant relation between idiosyncratic volatility and stock expected returns. My results are robust across different sample periods and firm characteristics.     

Corporate social responsibility,credit rating,and private debt contracting: new evidence from syndicated loan market

We examine the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on loan spreads of syndicated bank loans, with a particular interest in how CSR and credit ratings are interrelated as a joint determinant of loan spreads. Focusing on private debt contracts, we show that both CSR strengths and concerns are related to their loan spreads. CSR strengths work to lower firm risk, hence reducing the loan spread, whereas CSR concerns increase firm risk, thus increasing the loan spread. Once we include detailed credit rating information in the models, however, CSR concerns lose significance, but CSR strengths remain significantly related to the loan spread. We also find that both CSR strengths and CSR concerns are related to loan spread for non-rated firms, but the CSR concern effect is stronger than the CSR strength effect for these firms. A further test shows that firm risk measured by stock return volatility plays as a direct channel through which a firm’s CSR activities affect loan spreads, whose result lends further support to our main results. Overall, our results provide strong evidence that CSR matters to the pricing of loan contracts beyond credit rating information and the results remain robust to the possible firm size effect and the endogeneity issues.     

A High‐Frequency Investigation of the Interaction between Volatility and DAX Returns

One of the most noticeable stylised facts in finance is that stock index returns are negatively correlated with changes in volatility. The economic rationale for the effect is still controversial. The competing explanations have different implications for the origin of the relationship: Are volatility changes induced by index movements, or inversely, does volatility drive index returns? To differentiate between the alternative hypotheses, we analyse the lead‐lag relationship of option implied volatility and index return in Germany based on Granger causality tests and impulse‐response functions. Our dataset consists of all transactions in DAX options and futures over the time period from 1995 to 2005. Analyzing returns over 5‐minute intervals, we find that the relationship is return‐driven in the sense that index returns Granger cause volatility changes. This causal relationship is statistically and economically significant and can be clearly separated from the contemporaneous correlation. The largest part of the implied volatility response occurs immediately, but we also observe a smaller retarded reaction for up to one hour. A volatility feedback effect is not discernible. If it exists, the stock market appears to correctly anticipate its importance for index returns.     

Intraday Patterns in the Cross‐section of Stock Returns

Motivated by the literature on investment flows and optimal trading, we examine intraday predictability in the cross‐section of stock returns. We find a striking pattern of return continuation at half‐hour intervals that are exact multiples of a trading day, and this effect lasts for at least 40 trading days. Volume, order imbalance, volatility, and bid‐ask spreads exhibit similar patterns, but do not explain the return patterns. We also show that short‐term return reversal is driven by temporary liquidity imbalances lasting less than an hour and bid‐ask bounce. Timing trades can reduce execution costs by the equivalent of the effective spread.     

Risk and the January effect

We use a time-series GARCH framework with the conditional variance/covariance as proxies for systematic risk to reexamine the proposition by Rozeff and Kinney (1976) and Rogalski and Tinic (1986) that the January effect may be a phenomenon of risk compensation in the month. We find no clear evidence that either conditional volatility or unconditional volatility in January is predominantly higher across the sampling years. Hence, against the proposition, the January effect is not due to risk per se. Rather, we find strong evidence that the January effect is due to higher compensation for risk in the month. This may be possible if investors have an increasing RRA utility function. Although many studies find that volatility tends to be higher in January, we find it to be period-specific and mostly in value-weighted return series, but not in equal-weighted return series. This is true both for the unconditional and conditional return volatility.     

Does the Pricing of Financial Reporting Quality Change Around Dividend Changes?

We examine whether accrual earnings quality is a priced information risk factor in a dividend change setting. We define information risk as the probability that firm‐specific financial statement information pertinent to investor pricing decisions is of low precision, and use the factor‐mimicking portfolio returns formed on the Dechow‐Dichev [2002] accrual quality (AQ) metric to proxy for the information risk (IR) factor returns. We augment the Fama‐French three‐factor model with this IR factor, and find that dividend initiation and increase firms exhibit a decrease in the factor loadings on the IR factor while dividend decrease firms exhibit an increase in the corresponding factor loadings, but such changes in the factor loadings occur months prior to the dividend change announcements. The results are robust to further controls for operating risk and using an alternative measure of information risk. Further analysis on changes in information characteristics such as AQ, the probability of informed trading score (PIN), forecast dispersion, and return volatility surrounding dividend change events are consistent with the asset pricing results. Overall, we interpret our results as being consistent with investors treating the information risk associated with the precision of financial statement information as a priced risk factor, with both the precision and pricing changing in predictable directions around dividend changes. However, while we attempt to control for operating risk changes in additional tests, we cannot completely rule out changes in operating risk as a competing alternative explanation for our observed results.     

Trading volume and exchange rate volatility: Evidence for the sequential arrival of information hypothesis

The relationship between trading volume and volatility in foreign exchange markets continues to be of much interest, especially given the higher than expected volatility of returns. Allowing for nonlinearities, this paper tests competing hypotheses on the possible relationship between volatility and trading volume using data for three major currency futures contracts denominated in US dollars, namely the British pound, the Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen. We find that trading volumes and return volatility are negatively correlated, implying a lack of support for the mixture of distributions hypothesis (MDH). Using linear and nonlinear Granger causality tests, we document significant lead-lag relations between trading volumes and return volatility consistent with the sequential arrival of information (SAI) hypothesis. These findings are robust and not sample-dependent or due to heterogeneity of beliefs as proxied by open interest. Furthermore, our results are insensitive to the modeling approach used to recover volatility measures. Overall, our findings support the contention that short- to medium-term currency relationships may be dominated by trading dynamics and not by fundamentals.