Idiosyncratic Risk and REIT Returns

The volatility of a stock returns can be decomposed into market and firm-specific volatility, with the former commonly known as systematic risk and the later as idiosyncratic risk. This study examines the relevance of idiosyncratic risk in explaining the monthly cross-sectional returns of REIT stocks. Contrary to the CAPM theory, a significant positive relationship is found between idiosyncratic volatility and the cross-sectional returns. This suggests that firm-specific risk matters in REIT pricing. The regression results further show that once idiosyncratic risk is controlled for in the asset-pricing model, the size and book-to-market equity ratio factors ceased to be significant. The explanatory power of the momentum effect remains robust in the presence of idiosyncratic risk.

Cross-sectional determinants of New Zealand share market returns

We present evidence of the cross-sectional relation between security returns, beta, firm size and book-to-market ratio over the period 1971 to 1993 on the New Zealand sharemarket. Our results suggest that the NZSE-40 market index is not a mean-variance efficient market proxy—the betas calculated with respect to it being of little use for explaining expected returns cross-sectionally. Also, there is a significant positive relation between book-to-market ratio and average return.     

Determinants of idiosyncratic volatility: Evidence from the Indian stock market

This paper investigates whether firm-specific characteristics explain idiosyncratic volatility in the stocks of non-financial firms traded in the Indian stock market. It employs the linear time series five-factor model, augmented with a liquidity factor and the conditional EGARCH model, to extract yearly idiosyncratic volatility. We estimate a panel data regression to quantify the relationship between firm-specific characteristics and the volatility of individual securities. The results show that idiosyncratic volatility is significant in emerging markets such as India, and that cross-sectional return variations of firms are associated with firm-specific characteristics such as firm size, book-to-market ratio, momentum, liquidity, cash flow-to-price ratio, and returns on assets. We find that the idiosyncratic risk documented in this study is associated with smaller size of company, higher liquidity, low momentum, high book-to-market ratio, and low cash flow-to-price ratio. The findings suggest need to develop alternative tools to make investment decisions in emerging markets.     

Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests

If asset returns have systematic skewness, expected returns should include rewards for accepting this risk. We formalize this intuition with an asset pricing model that incorporates conditional skewness. Our results show that conditional skewness helps explain the cross-sectional variation of expected returns across assets and is significant even when factors based on size and book-to-market are included. Systematic skewness is economically important and commands a risk premium, on average, of 3.60 percent per year. Our results suggest that the momentum effect is related to systematic skewness. The low expected return momentum portfolios have higher skewness than high expected return portfolios.     

Size,value and momentum in stock returns: evidence from India

This paper examines the effects of size, value and momentum on the cross-sectional relation between expected returns and risk in the Indian stock market. We find that the conditional Carhart four-factor model empirically describes the variation of cross-section of return better than the unconditional model. When size, book-to-market and momentum effects are controlled in the conditional model, the positive relation of market beta, book-to-market and momentum with expected returns remains economically and statistically significant. However, this evidence is found to be subject to characteristics of test portfolios. The expected returns are sensitive to changes in predictive macroeconomic variables.     

The conditional relation between dispersion and return

The main goal of this paper is to examine the conditional pricing effect of return dispersion on the cross section of returns. We observe a systematic conditional relation between dispersion and return even after controlling for market, size and book-to-market factors. However, we find that return dispersion risk is asymmetrically priced with a significantly positive premium observed during periods of large market gains only. The findings are found to be robust to alternative conditional specifications of market returns, suggesting asymmetric pricing effect of the return dispersion factor. We provide alternative explanations for the systematic risk captured by the return dispersion factor and discuss implications for portfolio management and corporate decisions.     

The Usefulness of Book-to-Market and ROE Expectations for Explaining UK Stock Returns

Abstract:  The fundamental valuation perspective on stock returns suggests that book-to-market will be positively related to returns if market value of equity equals future expected cash flows discounted at the expected return and book value proxies for future cash flows. Building on this perspective, we develop a log linear model which includes expectations of future BM and ROE in addition to current BM as explanatory variables for future stock returns. We show that these three variables explain a significant part of UK cross-sectional stock returns and that they remain highly statistically significant after including additional risk proxy variables. This supports relevance of fundamental valuation based firm characteristics for explaining stock returns and indicates their potential usefulness for predicting future stock returns.     

Using Expectations to Test Asset Pricing Models

Asset pricing models generate predictions relating assets' expected rates of return and their risk attributes. Most tests of these models have employed realized rates of return as a proxy for expected return. We use analysts' expected rates of return to examine the relation between these expectations and firm attributes. By assuming that analysts' expectations are unbiased estimates of market-wide expected rates of return, we can circumvent the use of realized rates of return and provide evidence on the predictions emanating from traditional asset pricing models. We find a positive, robust relation between expected return and market beta and a negative relation between expected return and firm size, consistent with the notion that these are risk factors. We do not find that high book-to-market firms are expected to earn higher returns than low book-to-market firms, inconsistent with the notion that book-to-market is a risk factor.     

Market skewness risk and the cross section of stock returns

The cross section of stock returns has substantial exposure to risk captured by higher moments of market returns. We estimate these moments from daily Standard & Poor's 500 index option data. The resulting time series of factors are genuinely conditional and forward-looking. Stocks with high exposure to innovations in implied market skewness exhibit low returns on average. The results are robust to various permutations of the empirical setup. The market skewness risk premium is statistically and economically significant and cannot be explained by other common risk factors such as the market excess return or the size, book-to-market, momentum, and market volatility factors, or by firm characteristics.     

An International Dynamic Asset Pricing Model

We examine the ability of a dynamic asset-pricing model to explain the returns on G7-country stock market indices. We extend Campbell's (1996) asset-pricing model to investigate international equity returns. We also utilize and evaluate recent evidence on the predictability of stock returns. We find some evidence for the role of hedging demands in explaining stock returns and compare the predictions of the dynamic model to those from the static CAPM. Both models fail in their predictions of average returns on portfolios of high book-to-market stocks across countries.     

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.     

Default Risk and Equity Returns: Evidence from the Taiwan Equities Market

Studies of risk and return characteristics of different portfolios have recently gained enormous attention. Differing from past studies, this paper uses a compound option model to build the proxy of default risk and evaluate the relationship between default risk effect and equity returns. The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate the relationship among default risk, size, book-to-market, and equity returns, using data drawn from the Taiwan equities market, and to also examine whether size and book-to-market are proxies for default risk. The results show that the effects of size and book-to-market exist in different default portfolios when default risks are controlled. If size or book-to-market is controlled, there are no default effects. In the regression analysis, when default risk is included in Fama and French’s Three Factor Model, it shows that size, book-to-market and default risk have significant influence on equity returns and default risk is a systematic risk. Default risk is also more powerful in explaining returns when the compound option model is adopted for estimating default risks.     

Optimal Investment, Growth Options, and Security Returns

As a consequence of optimal investment choices, a firm's assets and growth options change in predictable ways. Using a dynamic model, we show that this imparts predictability to changes in a firm's systematic risk, and its expected return. Simulations show that the model simultaneously reproduces: (i) the time-series relation between the book-to-market ratio and asset returns; (ii) the cross-sectional relation between book-to-market, market value, and return; (iii) contrarian effects at short horizons; (iv) momentum effects at longer horizons; and (v) the inverse relation between interest rates and the market risk premium.     

Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?

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.     

Arbitrage risk and the turnover anomaly

A strong turnover premium exists such that stocks with lower turnover have higher future returns in the 5 years following their formation than those with higher turnover. This turnover premium cannot be explained by existing asset-pricing models, a risk-based liquidity factor, or anomalies such as size, book-to-market ratio, or momentum. Further analysis indicates that the turnover premium is greater for stocks with higher idiosyncratic volatility, higher transaction costs, lower institutional ownership, and lower investor sophistication, which implies it is consistent with the mispricing explanation based on arbitrage risk.     

Asset pricing anomalies: Liquidity risk hedgers or liquidity risk spreaders?

We capture two distinct investing preferences – hedging against aggregate liquidity risk or betting on it – in the cross-section of stock returns. A three-factor model underpinned by exposures to changes in market liquidity, isolating two alternating patterns, is developed. Our results can be summarized in the following ways: one, the improved performance of recent asset-pricing models is driven by factors that mimic liquidity risk hedging and are linked to cross-sectional mispricing. Two, our model outperforms competing models in explaining time-series return variation across market states. Three, our parsimonious model enables an understanding of diverging return premia in the cross-section. Four, the estimated risk premiums in our model correspond to theoretical, economic, and statistical restrictions holistically across varied and complex anomaly structures. In this respect, the performance of the proposed model is even better than the risk premiums on factors in the model that have the largest cross-sectional r-squared values.     

Constructing a Multifactor Model for the Shanghai Stock Exchange

ABSTRACT

We examine the validity of five factor models for explaining the time-series and cross-sectional variations in stock returns in the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The factor models include four models proposed by previous literature. Moreover, we propose a four-factor model (comprising market, size, book-to-market, and sales-to-price factors) to explain variations of stock returns in the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The results show that the Shanghai stock market exhibits size, book-to-market, and sales-to-price effects. Both the adjusted coefficient of determination and regression model intercepts indicate that the proposed four-factor model explains variations of stock returns in the Shanghai Stock Exchange more effectively in comparison with other multifactor models.     

New Evidence on Risk Factors, Characteristics and the Cross-Sectional Variation of Japanese Stock Returns

This paper examines whether the cross-sectional variations in stock returns are better described by systematic risk factors or by firm characteristics such as book-to-market ratios and market capitalization. It provides new evidence from the Japanese stock market based on the recent sample period from 2002 to 2007, which is not addressed in the existing literature. Also, the new results are derived from the generalized method of moments applied to daily returns. The evidence suggests that both the firm size and book-to-market ratio are significantly related to average return premiums. There is mixed evidence, which tends to lend stronger support to the characteristic model rather than the Fama-French three-factor model as more reflective of the return dynamics in the Japanese stock market.     

Empirical tests of the float-adjusted return model

This paper implements empirical tests of the recently proposed float-adjusted return model by using Chinese stock-market data. The results show that variation in free float can explain cross-sectional variation in asset returns by about 6.7% annually, after we control for market risk, size, and book-to-market equity. In addition, we also find that size and book-to-market equity help explain cross-sectional variations in returns even after controlling for free float.     

The Value Spread

We decompose the cross-sectional variance of firms' book-to-market ratios using both a long U.S. panel and a shorter international panel. In contrast to typical aggregate time-series results, transitory cross-sectional variation in expected 15-year stock returns causes only a relatively small fraction (20 to 25 percent) of the total cross-sectional variance. The remaining dispersion can be explained by expected 15-year profitability and persistence of valuation levels. Furthermore, this fraction appears stable across time and across types of stocks. We also show that the expected return on value-minus-growth strategies is atypically high at times when their spread in book-to-market ratios is wide.