Bad beta good beta,state‐space news decomposition and the cross‐section of stock returns

This study employs an innovative market‐based approach, where return on equity (ROE) is employed as a proxy for cash‐flow news and a state‐space model is used for market news decomposition. We document that the bad beta good beta (BBGB) model of Campbell and Vuolteenaho (2004) explains about 30 per cent of the cross‐sectional variations in US stock returns. We also find that the BBGB model adequately explains the size effect leading to its superior performance in this area. Our method controls for the news decomposition method and market news proxies’ bias. We contribute to the literature by providing an alternative easy‐to‐implement and consistent market‐based method for news decomposition.     

The application of proxy methods for estimating the cost of equity for unlisted companies: evidence from listed firms

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - The Campbell and Vuolteenaho (Am Econ Rev 94(5):1249–1275, 2004) two–beta model decomposes the systematic risk in the sensitivity of cash...     

Can Risk-Based Theories Explain the Value Premium?

This paper shows that some of the most prominent risk-basedtheories offered as explanation for the value premium are atodds with data. The models proposed by Fama and French (1993),Lettau and Ludvingson (2001), Campbell and Vuolteenaho (2004),and Yogo (2006) can capture the cross-section of returns ofportfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and size, but notof portfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and institutionalownership. These models generate economically large pricingerrors in all the institutional ownership quintiles and eachstatistical test indicates that these pricing errors are significant.More generally, these results show that a minor alteration ofthe test assets can lead to a dramatically different answerregarding the validity of a given asset pricing model.     

Time-varying risk premia and the cross section of stock returns

This paper develops and estimates a heteroskedastic variant of Campbell’s [Campbell, J., 1993. Intertemporal asset pricing without consumption data. American Economic Review 83, 487–512] ICAPM, in which risk factors include a stock market return and variables forecasting stock market returns or variance. Our main innovation is the use of a new set of predictive variables, which not only have superior forecasting abilities for stock returns and variance, but also are theoretically motivated. In contrast with the early authors, we find that Campbell’s ICAPM performs significantly better than the CAPM. That is, the additional factors account for a substantial portion of the two CAPM-related anomalies, namely, the value premium and the momentum profit.     

Do the Fama–French Factors Proxy for Innovations in Predictive Variables?

The Fama–French factors HML and SMB are correlated with innovations in variables that describe investment opportunities. A model that includes shocks to the aggregate dividend yield and term spread, default spread, and one‐month Treasury‐bill yield explains the cross section of average returns better than the Fama–French model. When loadings on the innovations in the predictive variables are present in the model, loadings on HML and SMB lose their explanatory power for the cross section of returns. The results are consistent with an ICAPM explanation for the empirical success of the Fama–French portfolios.     

Pacific Basin stock markets and international capital asset pricing

In this paper, we follow Harvey (1991) to investigate whether rates of return on Pacific Basin stock markets can be explained by conditional version of International Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM), which allows for time-varying expected returns, variances, and covariances. The results show that most individual Pacific Basin markets can be described by the conditional ICAPM. However, the multiple markets' tests do not support the conditional ICAPM formulation, and the estimates of world reward to risk ratio are not the same across these markets. Furthermore, the Ghysels and Hall test (Ghysels & Hall, 1990a, 1990b) shows that the estimates of parameter are also unstable in the conditional ICAPM formulation. This implies that it is difficult to use world return to describe the relationship between expected return and risk for the Pacific Basin stock markets.     

Common risk factors in bank stocks

This paper provides evidence on the risk factors that are priced in bank equities. Alternative empirical models with precedent in the nonfinancial asset pricing literature are tested, including the single-factor CAPM, three-factor Fama–French model, and ICAPM. Our empirical results indicate that an unconditional two-factor ICAPM model that includes the stock market excess return and shocks to the slope of the yield curve is useful in explaining the cross-section of bank stock returns. However, we find no evidence that firm specific factors such as size and book-to-market ratios are priced in bank stock returns. These results have a number of important implications for the estimation of the banks’ cost of capital as well as regulatory initiatives to utilize market discipline to evaluate bank risk under Basel II.     

Do Accruals Drive Firm‐Level Stock Returns? A Variance Decomposition Analysis

This paper extends the variance decomposition framework of Campbell [1991], Campbell and Ammer [1993], and Vuolteenaho [2002] to address the relative value relevance of accrual news, cash flow news, and expected-return news in driving firm-level equity returns. The extension is based on the Feltham-Ohlson [1995, 1996] clean surplus relations. Using three models, this study shows that all three factors, accruals, cash flows, and expected future discount rates are value relevant. Moreover, accrual news is found to significantly dominate expected-return news in driving firm-level stock returns. Operating income news is also found to significantly dominate both expected-return news and free cash flow news in driving firm-level stock returns. Furthermore, after splitting net income into cash flow and accrual earnings components in the Vuolteenaho model, accrual earnings news and cash flow earnings news are found to equally drive firm-level stock returns and to dominate expected-return news. Further disaggregation of the data yields some evidence that accrual earnings news is a more important factor than cash flow earnings news in driving current stock returns. Overall, the three models indicate that changes in expected future accruals are a primary driver, if not the primary driver, of current stock returns.     

Relation between time-series and cross-sectional effects of idiosyncratic variance on stock returns

Consistent with the post-1962 US evidence by Ang et al. [Ang, A., Hodrick, R., Xing Y., Zhang, X., 2006. The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. Journal of Finance 51, 259–299], we find that stocks with high idiosyncratic variance (IV) have low CAPM-adjusted expected returns in both pre-1962 US and modern G7 data. We also test in three ways the conjecture that IV is a proxy of systematic risk. First, the return difference between low and high IV stocks – that we dub as IVF – is a priced factor in the cross-section of stock returns. Second, loadings on lagged market variance and lagged average IV account for a significant portion of variation in average returns on portfolios sorted by IV. Third, the variance of IVF correlates closely with average IV, and the two variables have similar explanatory power for the time-series and cross-sectional stock returns.     

Inflation risk and international asset returns

We show that inflation risk is priced in international asset returns. We analyze inflation risk in a framework that encompasses the International Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM) of Adler and Dumas (1983). In contrast to the extant empirical literature on the ICAPM, we relax the assumption that inflation rates are constant. We estimate and test a conditional version of the model for the G5 countries (France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US) over the period 1975–1998 and find evidence of statistically and economically significant prices of inflation risk (in addition to priced nominal exchange rate risk). Our results imply a rejection of the restrictions imposed by the ICAPM. In an extension of our analysis to 2003, we show that even after the termination of nominal exchange rate fluctuations in the euro area in 1999, differences in inflation rates across countries entail non-trivial real exchange rate risk premia.     

Modelling mean reversion of asset prices towards their fundamental value

In this paper we extend the study of mean reversion behavior by modelling the fundamental value as a stochastic process. The market value of the asset is then modelled as a mean reverting Ornstein Uhlenbeck process towards the fundamental value. Solving backwards, we determine the functional form of the regression equation of changes in asset prices and returns to changes to the fundamental value. Using earnings and dividends as proxies for the fundamental value we test our model empirically. In general, other than the shortest horizon of 1-year, our model shows good explanatory power. Since our model is compatible with Campbell and Shiller (1988) framework in the earnings case and Fama and French (1988) model in the dividend case, the performance of our model has been compared with those two models. In comparison, the performance of our model is comparable to that of Campbell and Shiller and compares favorably with Fama and French.     

Can habit formation under complete market integration explain the cross-section of international equity risk premia?

In this article, we analyse whether the prominent habit formation model of Campbell and Cochrane (1999) can explain the cross-section of the G7 equity risk premia when formulated under the assumption of complete capital market integration. We test the conditional covariance representation of the model using a combined GARCH and GMM approach in the spirit of Bali (2008) and find that in comparison to the CAPM and the standard power utility CCAPM the habit model has superior explanatory power. It explains more than 90% of the cross-sectional variation in risk premia. Overall, our findings suggest that global consumption-based recession indicators and not returns of reference portfolios are key risk factors driving equity risk premia.     

World market risk,country-specific risk and expected returns in international stock markets

This paper determines whether the world market risk, country-specific total risk, and country-specific idiosyncratic risk are priced in an international capital asset pricing model (ICAPM). Portfolio-level analyses, country-level cross-sectional regressions, stacked time-series, and pooled panel regressions indicate that the world market risk is not, but country-specific total and idiosyncratic risks are significantly priced in an ICAPM framework with partial integration. This result is robust to different methods for estimating risk measures, different investment horizons, and after controlling for the countries’ aggregate dividend yield, earnings-to-price ratios, inflation risk, exchange rate uncertainties, aggregate volatility risk, and past return characteristics. The main findings turn out to be insensitive to the choice of one-factor vs. multifactor models used to estimate systematic and idiosyncratic risk measures.     

Expected Accrual Models: The Impact of Operating Cash Flows and Reversals of Accruals

This paper augments the Jones (1991) model with operating cash flows and lagged accruals to evaluate the impact of (1) the negative association between accruals and concurrent cash flows, (2) the positive association between accruals and lagged cash flows, and (3) the reversal of accruals. I find that operating cash flows greatly improve the explanatory and predictive power of the Jones model; but, lagged accruals do not. A market test of the expected and unexpected components of accruals indicates that unexpected accruals are on average informative with respect to concurrent stock returns; however, the market does not fully understand the implications of accruals anticipated at the beginning of the return period.This paper has benefited from helpful comments and suggestions from Tae Hee Choi, In-Kyu Moon, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of this paper. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Queens School of Business.     

News and the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns

We study the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns using an inter-temporal CAPM (ICAPM) with three-factors: innovations in future excess bond returns, future real interest rates and future expected inflation. Our test assets are a broad range of corporate bond market index portfolios. We find that two factors – innovations about future inflation and innovations about future real interest rates – explain the cross-section of expected corporate bond returns in our sample. Our model provides an alternative to the ad hoc risk factor models used, for example, in evaluating the performance of bond mutual funds.     

Evaluating a non-linear asset pricing model on international data

The paper analyses the ability of a non-linear asset pricing model suggested by Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403] to explain the returns on international value and growth portfolios. For comparison we use competing pricing models such as the ICAPM, the exchange rate risk augmented ICAPM and the international two-factor model proposed by Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K. R., 1998. Value versus growth: The international evidence. Journal of Finance 53, 1975-1999]. All models are evaluated both unconditionally and conditionally. The models are evaluated by applying the Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure, and we also employ several alternative measures to ensure a robust comparison of the models. We find support for the model of Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403]. Evaluated conditionally, this model successfully passes all the different diagnostic tests performed in the analysis.     

Testing for rational bubbles in the presence of structural breaks: Evidence from nonstationary panels

This paper presents new results on the rational bubbles hypothesis for a panel of 18 OECD countries using the model developed by Campbell (2000). We provide an analysis of international data that exploits increased power deriving from the panel unit root and cointegration methodology, together with the flexibility of allowing explicitly for multiple endogenous structural breaks in the individual series. Differently from the time series methodology, the panel data approach allows for a global analysis of the financial crashes that are related to rational bubbles. We find strong evidence in favor of bubbles phenomena.     

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.     

Comparing different explanations of the volatility trend

We analyze the puzzling behavior of the volatility of individual stock returns over the past few decades. The literature has provided many different explanations to the trend in volatility and this paper tests the viability of the different explanations. Virtually all current theoretical arguments that are provided for the trend in the average level of volatility over time lend themselves to explanations about the difference in volatility levels between firms in the cross-section. We therefore focus separately on the cross-sectional and time-series explanatory power of the different proxies. We fail to find a proxy that is able to explain both dimensions well. In particular, we find that Cao et al. [Cao, C., Simin, T.T., Zhao, J., 2008. Can growth options explain the trend in idiosyncratic risk? Review of Financial Studies 21, 2599-2633] market-to-book ratio tracks average volatility levels well, but has no cross-sectional explanatory power. On the other hand, the low-price proxy suggested by Brandt et al. [Brandt, M.W., Brav, A., Graham, J.R., Kumar, A., 2010. The idiosyncratic volatility puzzle: time trend or speculative episodes. Review of Financial Studies 23, 863-899] has much cross-sectional explanatory power, but has virtually no time-series explanatory power. We also find that the different proxies do not explain the trend in volatility in the period prior to 1995 (R-squared of virtually zero), but explain rather well the trend in volatility at the turn of the Millennium (1995-2005).     

The determinants of the price impact of block trades: further evidence

This article extends previous literature which examines the determinants of the price impact of block trades on the Australian Stock Exchange. As previous literature suggests that liquidity exhibits intraday patterns, we introduce time of day dummy variables to explore time dependencies in price impact. Following theoretical developments in previous literature, the explanatory power of the bid–ask spread, a lagged cumulative stock return variable and a refined measure of market returns are also examined. The model estimated explains approximately 29 per cent of the variation in price impact. Block trades executed in the first hour of trading experience the greatest price impact, while market conditions, lagged stock returns and bid–ask spreads are positively related to price impact. The bid–ask spread provides most of the explanatory power. This suggests that liquidity is the main driver of price impact.