Stock weighting and nontrading bias in estimated portfolio returns

Liu and Strong (2008) note that researchers often employ a simple (but incorrect) averaging approach that induces significant error into estimated buy‐and‐hold portfolio returns. This study explores the additional challenges that arise when stocks are subject to nontrading. We develop a decomposition of the total bias in estimated return into the components attributable to the stock weighting approach and the treatment of nontrading. While the latter is shown to be negligible, the former can approach 150 basis points per month. Our empirical analysis of Australian equities shows that the simple averaging approach tends to overstate the size and book‐to‐market effects, and understate the momentum effect.     

Political and Regulatory Risk in Water Utilities: Beta Sensitivity in the United Kingdom

UK utilities are generally regulated by the periodic setting of a price cap (the RPI-X mechanism). To establish these caps, regulators must determine what returns are appropriate on the capital employed by utilities. This paper addresses the issue of the level of risk inherent in investment in the equity of regulated water utilities in the UK. It uses the techniques of the Kalman Filter to estimate daily betas for the major utilities in the period from privatisation to mid-1999. The paper demonstrates that water utilities' risk is time-variant. It demonstrates, also, that there have been significant political and regulatory influences in the systematic risk faced by water utility shareholders. It finds beta to display little evidence of cyclical variation across the regulatory review cycle. The paper also confirms that significant excess returns have been generated over the history of the privatised water sector and suggests that over-estimation of systematic risk faced by investors in the sector may imply further excess returns in the next regulatory review period.     

Disagreement and return predictability of stock portfolios

This paper provides evidence that portfolio disagreement measured bottom-up from individual-stock analyst forecast dispersions has a number of asset pricing implications. For the market portfolio, market disagreement mean-reverts and is negatively related to ex post expected market return. Contemporaneously, an increase in market disagreement manifests as a drop in discount rate. For book-to-market sorted portfolios, the value premium is stronger among high disagreement stocks. The underperformance by high disagreement stocks is stronger among growth stocks. Growth stocks are more sensitive to variations in disagreement relative to value stocks. These findings are consistent with asset pricing theory incorporating belief dispersion.     

Value versus growth: stochastic dominance criteria

In this paper, we study the relative performance of value versus growth strategies from the perspective of stochastic dominance. Using half a century US data on value and growth stocks, we find no evidence against the widely documented fact that value stocks stochastically dominate growth stocks in all three orders of stochastic dominance relations over the full sample period as well as during economic boom (good) periods. However, we observe no significant stochastic dominance relation between value and growth stocks during recession (bad) periods, which is inconsistent with the risk-based predictions but is better explained by behavioural models.     

What Does the CAPM Say About Operating Leverage?

We examine the issue of operating leverage and firm value. Johnstone (2020), in this issue, questions existing results which indicate that higher operating leverage results in lower firm value. We agree with Johnstone (2020) that this result is to be questioned and present a number of arguments which indicate that operating leverage is irrelevant to the valuation of the firm in the context of the CAPM model.     

The Value Premium and Time-Varying Volatility

Abstract:  Numerous studies have documented the failure of the static and conditional capital asset pricing models to explain the difference in returns between value and growth stocks. This paper examines the post-1963 value premium by employing a model that captures the time-varying total risk of the value-minus-growth portfolios. Our results show that the time-series of value premia is strongly and positively correlated with its volatility. This conclusion is robust to the criterion used to sort stocks into value and growth portfolios and to the country under review (the US and the UK). Our paper is consistent with evidence on the possible role of idiosyncratic risk in explaining equity returns, and also with a separate strand of literature concerning the relative lack of reversibility of value firms' investment decisions.     

中国股票市场流动性风险溢价研究

本文在对Fama三因素模型和LACAPM模型进行改进的基础上,实证研究了中国股票市场的流动性风险溢价、规模效应以及价值效应。实证结果发现,改进的FAMA三因素模型能够比CAPM更好地解释价值效应,但却不能解释规模效应和流动性风险溢价现象;而改进的LACAPM在解释市场异象上的有效性则明显优于其他定价模型。     

Displacement risk and asset returns

We study asset-pricing implications of innovation in a general-equilibrium overlapping-generations economy. Innovation increases the competitive pressure on existing firms and workers, reducing the profits of existing firms and eroding the human capital of older workers. Due to the lack of inter-generational risk sharing, innovation creates a systematic risk factor, which we call “displacement risk.” This risk helps explain several empirical patterns, including the existence of the growth-value factor in returns, the value premium, and the high equity premium. We assess the magnitude of displacement risk using estimates of inter-cohort consumption differences across households and find support for the model.     

Habit formation,the cross section of stock returns and the cash-flow risk puzzle

Non-linear external habit persistence models, which feature prominently in the recent “equity premium” asset pricing and macroeconomics literature, generate counterfactual predictions in the cross-section of stock returns. In particular, we show that in the absence of cross-sectional heterogeneity in firms’ cash-flow risk, these models produce a “growth premium,” that is, stocks with high price-to-fundamental ratios command a higher premium than stocks with low price-to-fundamental ratios. This implication is at odds with the well-established empirical observation of a “value premium” in the cross-section of stock returns. Substantial heterogeneity in firms’ cash-flow risk yields both a value premium as well as most of the stylized facts about the cross-section of stock returns, but it generates a “cash-flow risk puzzle”: Quantitatively, value stocks have to have “too much” cash-flow risk compared to the data to generate empirically plausible value premiums.     

Style timing with the value spread in Australia

The value spread is shown to be positively related to the value premium in the Australian market. The relationship is especially strong for small cap portfolios and typically stronger when using the book‐to‐price ratio than other value metrics. In small cap portfolios, the positive value premium–spread relationship is primarily driven by the short side. Our results are consistent with previous findings in US and Asian markets. We also show that the small cap–large cap value spread differential is positively related to the corresponding value premium differential, suggesting the value spread can also be used for timing the large/small cap tilt.     

Betting against beta

We present a model with leverage and margin constraints that vary across investors and time. We find evidence consistent with each of the model's five central predictions: (1) Because constrained investors bid up high-beta assets, high beta is associated with low alpha, as we find empirically for US equities, 20 international equity markets, Treasury bonds, corporate bonds, and futures. (2) A betting against beta (BAB) factor, which is long leveraged low-beta assets and short high-beta assets, produces significant positive risk-adjusted returns. (3) When funding constraints tighten, the return of the BAB factor is low. (4) Increased funding liquidity risk compresses betas toward one. (5) More constrained investors hold riskier assets.     

Does the equity premium puzzle persist during financial crisis? The case of the French equity market

This paper examines the effects of the financial crisis that began in 2008 on the equity premium of 6 French sector indices. Since the systematic risk coefficient beta remains the most common explanatory element of risk premium in most asset pricing models, we investigate the impact of the crisis on the time-varying beta of the six sector indices cited. We selected daily data from January 2003 to December 2012 and we applied the bivariate MA-GARCH model (BEKK) to estimate time-varying betas for the sector indices. The crisis was marked by increased volatility of the sector indices and the market. This rise in volatility led to an increase in the systematic risk coefficient during the crisis and first post-crisis period for all the major indices. The results are intuitive and corroborate findings in the empirical literature. The increase of the time-varying beta is considered by investors as an additional risk. Therefore, as expected, investors tend to increase their equity premiums to b ear the impact of financial crisis.     

The term structures of equity and interest rates

This paper proposes a dynamic risk-based model capable of jointly explaining the term structure of interest rates, returns on the aggregate market, and the risk and return characteristics of value and growth stocks. Both the term structure of interest rates and returns on value and growth stocks convey information about how the representative investor values cash flows of different maturities. We model how the representative investor perceives risks of these cash flows by specifying a parsimonious stochastic discount factor for the economy. Shocks to dividend growth, the real interest rate, and expected inflation are priced, but shocks to the price of risk are not. Given reasonable assumptions for dividends and inflation, we show that the model can simultaneously account for the behavior of aggregate stock returns, an upward-sloping yield curve, the failure of the expectations hypothesis, and the poor performance of the capital asset pricing model.     

When are investment projects in the same risk class?

If two investments have the same pay‐off covariance with the market but one has higher expected pay‐off, which asset according to the CAPM has most risk? One answer is that as far as risk goes the two assets are the same, because they have the same covariance with the market. The correct answer, pointed out nearly four decades ago by Eugene Fama, but long overlooked, is that investments have the same risk, the same returns beta and the same CAPM discount rate if and only if they have the same ratio of ex ante pay‐off covariance to pay‐off mean. This insight clarifies much of the conventional wisdom that surrounds capital budgeting and ‘risk‐adjusted’ discount rates, while also displaying the mechanics by which information arrival affects the CAPM cost of capital.     

The other side of value: The gross profitability premium

Profitability, measured by gross profits-to-assets, has roughly the same power as book-to-market predicting the cross section of average returns. Profitable firms generate significantly higher returns than unprofitable firms, despite having significantly higher valuation ratios. Controlling for profitability also dramatically increases the performance of value strategies, especially among the largest, most liquid stocks. These results are difficult to reconcile with popular explanations of the value premium, as profitable firms are less prone to distress, have longer cash flow durations, and have lower levels of operating leverage. Controlling for gross profitability explains most earnings related anomalies and a wide range of seemingly unrelated profitable trading strategies.     

Time‐Varying Risk–Return Trade‐off in the Stock Market

We uncover a strong comovement of the stock market risk–return trade‐off with the consumption–wealth ratio (CAY). The finding reflects time‐varying investment opportunities rather than countercyclical aggregate relative risk aversion. Specifically, the partial risk–return trade‐off is positive and constant when we control for CAY as a proxy for investment opportunities. Moreover, conditional market variance scaled by CAY is negatively priced in the cross‐section of stock returns. Our results are consistent with a limited stock market participation model, in which shareholders require an illiquidity premium that increases with CAY, in addition to the risk premium that is proportional to conditional market variance.