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.     

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.     

Extreme downside risk and expected stock returns

We propose a measure for extreme downside risk (EDR) to investigate whether bearing such a risk is rewarded by higher expected stock returns. By constructing an EDR proxy with the left tail index in the classical generalized extreme value distribution, we document a significantly positive EDR premium in cross-section of stock returns even after controlling for market, size, value, momentum, and liquidity effects. The EDR premium is more prominent among glamor stocks and when high market returns are expected. High-EDR stocks are generally characterized by high idiosyncratic risk, large downside beta, lower coskewness and cokurtosis, and high bankruptcy risk. The EDR premium persists after these characteristics are controlled for. Although Value at Risk (VaR) plays a significant role in explaining the EDR premium, it cannot completely subsume the EDR effect.     

Foreign exchange risk and the cross-section of stock returns

We examine the relation between the cross-section of US stock returns and foreign exchange rates during the period from 1973 to 2002. We find that stocks most sensitive to foreign exchange risk (in absolute value) have lower returns than others. This implies a non-linear, negative premium for foreign exchange risk. Sensitivity to foreign exchange generates a cross-sectional spread in stock returns unexplained by existing asset-pricing models. Consequently, we form a zero-investment factor related to foreign exchange-sensitivity and show that it can reduce mean pricing errors for exchange-sensitive portfolios. One possible explanation for our findings includes Johnson's [2004. Forecast dispersion and the cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Finance, 59, 1957–1978] option-theoretic model in which expected returns are decreasing in idiosyncratic cashflow volatility.     

On the relationship between concentration of prospect theory/mental accounting investors,cointegration, and momentum

We examine the role of cointegration between stock prices and their estimated fundamental values in return momentum. We find that the positive relationship between capital gains overhang and future stock returns in Grinblatt and Han (2005) is significantly stronger among the “non-cointegrated” group of stocks as compared with the “cointegrated” group of stocks. Further, for the cointegrated stocks, the slower the speed of adjustment to the cointegrating equilibrium, the greater (smaller) is the future return of stocks with unrealized capital gains (losses). These findings are robust to various firm characteristics including firm size, book-to-market ratio, past returns, idiosyncratic volatility, dispersion in analysts’ earnings forecasts, turnover, individual investor ownership, and industry returns.     

Time-varying risk aversion and asset prices

This paper uses a variant of the consumption-based representative agent model in Campbell and Cochrane [Campbell, J.Y., Cochrane, J.H., 1999. By force of habit: Consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. Journal of Political Economy 107, 205–251] to study how investors’ time-varying risk aversion affects asset prices. First, we show that a countercyclical variation of risk aversion drives a procyclical conditional risk premium. Second, we show that with a small value for the volatility of the log surplus consumption ratio, a large value of risk aversion may not determine whether the equity premium and the risk-free rate puzzles can be resolved or not. Third, we show that countercyclical risk aversion may not help explain the predictability of long-horizon stock returns, the univariate mean-reversion of stock prices and the “leverage effect” in return volatility.     

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.     

Credit default swap spreads and variance risk premia

We find that the firm-level variance risk premium has a prominent explanatory power for credit spreads in the presence of market- and firm-level control variables established in the existing literature. Such predictability complements that of the leading state variable—the leverage ratio—and strengthens significantly with a lower firm credit rating, longer credit contract maturity, and model-free implied variance. We provide further evidence that (1) the variance risk premium has a cleaner systematic component than implied variance or expected variance, (2) the cross-section of firms’ variance risk premia capture systematic variance risk in a stronger way than firms’ equity returns in capturing market return risk, and (3) a structural model with stochastic volatility can reproduce the predictability pattern of variance risk premia for credit spreads.     

The empirical risk–return relation: A factor analysis approach

Existing empirical literature on the risk–return relation uses relatively small amount of conditioning information to model the conditional mean and conditional volatility of excess stock market returns. We use dynamic factor analysis for large data sets, to summarize a large amount of economic information by few estimated factors, and find that three new factors—termed “volatility,” “risk premium,” and “real” factors—contain important information about one-quarter-ahead excess returns and volatility not contained in commonly used predictor variables. Our specifications predict 16–20% of the one-quarter-ahead variation in excess stock market returns, and exhibit stable and statistically significant out-of-sample forecasting power. We also find a positive conditional risk–return correlation.     

Accrual quality,skill, and the cross-section of mutual fund returns

We use returns of actively managed mutual funds to document the link between accrual quality (AQ) and systematic (priced) risk. Despite compelling theoretical arguments, prior research finds no evidence that poor AQ commands a risk premium in the cross-section of realized stock returns. We argue that the previously obtained premium estimates are biased downward because, for a large portion of poor AQ stocks, higher expected returns are offset by the news of deteriorating fundamentals. We suggest that skilled mutual fund managers should be able to either avoid investing in stocks with deteriorating fundamentals or assign them lower portfolio weights. As a consequence, returns on their portfolios should better reflect the expected AQ risk premium. Our empirical evidence is consistent with these predictions.     

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.     

Equity market valuation of human capital and stock returns

We investigate whether and how well firms’ stock market valuations reflect their employees’ collective skills and effectiveness relative to that of their industry peers and competitors. We devise a relative stock market valuation measure of human capital intangibles (EVHC) and find that portfolios of low EVHC firms systematically outperform portfolios of high EVHC firms by an average 1.34% per month. However, this is primarily a small firms effect, because for large firms the excess returns of the arbitrage portfolio that is long on the low EVHC stocks and short on the high EVHC stocks is zero. Our results suggest that reliance on human capital intangibles may proxy for risk not fully accounted for by conventional asset pricing models, or alternatively, that the market cannot correctly price human capital intangibles for small size firms.     

The 2008 short sale ban: Liquidity, dispersion of opinion, and the cross-section of returns of US financial stocks

This study examines the cross-sectional impact of the 2008 short sale ban on the returns of US financial stocks. Motivated by the large cross-sectional variation in the extent to which banned stocks suffer an illiquidity shock, we hypothesize that stocks with larger liquidity declines are associated with poorer contemporaneous stock returns. The evidence supports this hypothesis and suggests that this effect is stronger for more liquid stocks, as predicted by Amihud and Mendelson (1986). Moreover, consistent with Miller’s (1977) model, we report a valuation reversal whereby stocks with higher abnormal returns at the onset of the ban have lower abnormal returns at its removal. Our findings are robust when we control for firms most affected by TARP, include non-banned matched firms, and compare banned firms’ stock returns with their bond returns. From a policy standpoint, the ban reduced valuations, ceteris paribus, of the stocks that were hardest hit by illiquidity.     

“Crises” in medical malpractice insurance: Evidence of excessive price-cutting in the preceding soft market

Prior work suggests that heterogeneous information or weak incentives for solvency could have caused some general liability insurers to charge low ex ante prices during the early 1980s and mid-to-late 1990s, putting downward pressure on other firms’ prices and plausibly aggravating subsequent periods of rapid premium growth. We analyse whether the 1994–1999 “soft” market in medical malpractice insurance led some firms to underprice, grow rapidly, and subsequently experience upward revisions in loss forecasts (“loss development”), which could have aggravated subsequent market “crises”. Consistent with the underpricing hypothesis, the results indicate a positive relation between loss development and premium growth among growing firms. Underpricing was likely more prevalent among non-specialist malpractice insurers.     

Political geography and stock returns: The value and risk implications of proximity to political power

We show that political geography has a pervasive effect on the cross-section of stock returns. We collect election results over a 40-year period and use a political alignment index (PAI) of each state's leading politicians with the ruling (presidential) party to proxy for local firms’ proximity to political power. Firms whose headquarters are located in high PAI states outperform those located in low PAI states, both in terms of raw returns, and on a risk-adjusted basis. Overall, although we cannot rule out indirect political connectedness advantages as an explanation of the PAI effect, our results are consistent with the notion that proximity to political power has stock return implications because it reflects firms’ exposure to policy risk.     

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.     

The relationship between asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns

There is a large body of literature examining the association between stock characteristics and the cross-section of stock returns in international markets. Recently, Cooper et al. (2008) reported a strong association between total asset growth and stock returns in the US. In this paper, we show that an asset-growth effect also exists in the Australian equity market. Of particular interest, it is present amongst the largest Australian stocks. Over the 1983-2007 period, an equally-weighted portfolio of low-growth Big stocks outperforms a portfolio of high-growth Big stocks by an average 1% per month, equating to nearly 13% per annum. At an individual stock level of analysis, the asset-growth effect remains even after controlling for other variables whose association with the cross-section of returns is well known. Finally, we explicitly test whether asset growth is a priced risk factor using the common two-stage cross-sectional regression methodology. We find no evidence to support a risk-based explanation, thereby lending credence to Cooper et al.’s (2008) suggestion that the asset-growth effect is attributable to mispricing.     

The market price of risk of the variance term structure

In this paper I examine the market price of risk of the variance term structure. To this end, the S&P 500 option implied variance term structure is used as a proxy for aggregate variance risk. Principal component analysis shows that time variation in the variance term structure over the 1996–2012 period can be explained mainly by two factors which capture changes in the level and slope. The market price of risk of each factor is estimated in the cross-section of stock returns. The slope of the variance term structure is the most significant factor in the cross-section of stocks returns and carries a negative risk premium. The slope factor has also some predictive ability over long horizon equity returns.     

Can Operating Leverage Be the Cause of the Value Premium?

Recent theoretical models (Carlson, Fisher, and Giammarino, 2004) predict an association between the book-to-market equity ratio (BE/ME) and operating leverage in the cross-section. Consistent with these models, we find a positive association between BE/ME and the degree of operating leverage (DOL), between DOL and stock returns, and between DOL and systematic risk. Overall, our findings provide support for a risk-based explanation for the value premium that is consistent with existing theoretical models. The evolution of systematic risk associated with firm-level investment activity, rather than financial distress, seems to be the main determinant of the value premium.     

Empirical Evidence of the Existence of Investable Premiums in Emerging Market Investable Stocks

This paper shows that portfolios of more investable securities bear a premium when compared to portfolios of less investable stocks, reflecting compensation for local risk factors. The investable premium is overwhelmingly priced across 3,782 companies traded in 29 emerging markets from 1988 to 2006. The investable premium impacts stock returns at least as much as other fundamental premiums such as size, value, momentum, and loads on political, economic, and financial risk factors. The impact of the investable premium on emerging stocks returns has increased in strength, implying that foreign ownership has greater influence on local markets in recent years.