首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?
Authors:Pin-Huang Chou  Kuan-Cheng Ko  Shinn-Juh Lin
Institution:1. Department of Finance, National Central University, 300, Jhong-Da Rd., Jhongli City, Taiwan 32001, Taiwan;2. Department of Banking and Finance, National Chi Nan University, Puli, Taiwan 54561, Taiwan;3. Department of International Business, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan 11605, Taiwan
Abstract:In a capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework, Ferguson and Shockley 2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] propose two factors constructed on relative leverage and relative distress, and show that the two factors subsume Fama and French's 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] factors constructed on size and book-to-market (BM) in explaining the cross-sectional average returns of the 25 size-BM portfolios. Based on tests on individual securities, we find that all factors fail to fully explain the common asset-pricing anomalies. In the spirit of Merton's 1973. An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41, 867–887] intertemporal CAPM, we propose an augmented five-factor model, which incorporates Ferguson and Shockley's 2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] factors into the Fama–French three-factor model. The empirical results show that a simple conditional version of the augmented model is able to explain most well-known asset-pricing anomalies.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号