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.     

The Post‐Cost Profitability of Momentum Trading Strategies: Further Evidence from the UK

This paper examines the post‐cost profitability of momentum trading strategies in the UK over the period 1988–2003 and provides direct evidence on stock concentration, turnover and trading cost associated with the strategy. We find that after factoring out transaction costs the profitability of the momentum strategy disappears for shorter horizons but remains for longer horizons. Indeed, for ranking and holding periods up to 6‐months, profitable momentum returns would not be available to most average investors as the cost of implementation outweighs the possible returns. However, we find post‐cost profitability for ranking and/or holding periods beyond 6 months as portfolio turnover and its associated cost reduces. We find similar results for a sub‐sample of relatively large and liquid stocks.     

Market Expectations in the Cross‐Section of Present Values

Returns and cash flow growth for the aggregate U.S. stock market are highly and robustly predictable. Using a single factor extracted from the cross‐section of book‐to‐market ratios, we find an out‐of‐sample return forecasting R² of 13% at the annual frequency (0.9% monthly). We document similar out‐of‐sample predictability for returns on value, size, momentum, and industry portfolios. We present a model linking aggregate market expectations to disaggregated valuation ratios in a latent factor system. Spreads in value portfolios’ exposures to economic shocks are key to identifying predictability and are consistent with duration‐based theories of the value premium.     

Momentum in weekly returns: the role of intermediate‐horizon past performance

Gutierrez and Kelly (2008) recently documented momentum in weekly returns. Using the Australian market as a setting, we find that stocks with high 1‐week returns exhibit a continuation in returns up to 1 year after a brief initial return reversal. However, after controlling for the intermediate‐horizon past performance, the continuation in returns after 1‐week returns disappears. These findings suggest that different past investment horizons contain separate information about price momentum and that intermediate‐term trends dominate short‐term trends in driving future returns. Overall, we show that understanding momentum over different horizons facilitates the design of more profitable trading strategies.     

Cross‐firm return predictability and accounting quality

We test the hypothesis that if poor accounting quality (AQ) is associated with poor investor understanding of firms’ revenue and cost structures, then poor AQ stocks likely respond more slowly than good AQ stocks to new non‐idiosyncratic information that affects both sets of firms. Consistent with this, results indicate that stock returns of good AQ firms significantly positively predict one‐month‐ahead stock returns to industry‐ and size‐matched poor AQ firms. In testing a delayed‐information‐processing mechanism behind the cross‐firm return predictability, we find that: (i) analyst earnings forecast revisions (FR) mimic the return patterns, as FR of good AQ firms significantly positively predict one‐month‐ahead FR of matched poor AQ firms; (ii) cross‐firm return predictability is concentrated in months with substantial news arrival, including months with Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) rate announcements, but not in no‐news months; (iii) cross‐firm return predictability is stronger when the good AQ predictor firms have a richer information environment than poor AQ firms as proxied by analyst following, institutional ownership, and the presence of a Big 4 auditor. Collectively, the results uncover a new relation between accounting quality and stock return dynamics.     

Determinants of Investor Demand for Cross‐Listed Firms

By focusing on the decisions of investors to invest in cross‐listed stocks, this paper presents new evidence on why we observe striking differences in the percentage of trade in foreign markets for cross‐listed stocks. With a large sample of Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) stocks cross‐listed in the U.S. and Canada, we document the effect of investor recognition and risk characteristics on the distribution of trading volume. Firms that are more visible to American investors are traded more heavily in the U.S. At the same time, firms that offer diverse risk characteristics are attractive to Americans. While investors understand the benefits of international diversification, as they are attracted to stocks that are different (e.g., the stock of small firms with few assets in the U.S.), they also seek stocks that provide them with high returns.     

Market Segmentation and Cross‐predictability of Returns

We present evidence supporting the hypothesis that due to investor specialization and market segmentation, value‐relevant information diffuses gradually in financial markets. Using the stock market as our setting, we find that (i) stocks that are in economically related supplier and customer industries cross‐predict each other's returns, (ii) the magnitude of return cross‐predictability declines with the number of informed investors in the market as proxied by the level of analyst coverage and institutional ownership, and (iii) changes in the stock holdings of institutional investors mirror the model trading behavior of informed investors.     

ROBUSTNESS OF THE HEADQUARTERS‐CITY EFFECT ON STOCK RETURNS

Recent studies report that U.S. firms headquartered near each other experience positive comovement in their stock returns, a finding suggestive of local biases in equity trading activity. We investigate the robustness of these findings and find that including additional pricing factors in models for monthly stock returns materially reduces the magnitude of the headquarters‐city effect in stock returns. Additionally, we find that an implicit null hypothesis of zero local return comovement is inappropriate as there is positive comovement between a stock's return and returns on portfolios of stocks from nonheadquarters cities, on average. Nevertheless, results benchmarked against estimates based on resampling methods indicate a significant and robust headquarters‐city effect in stock returns.     

Pricing deviation,misvaluation comovement,and macroeconomic conditions

We measure an individual stock’s misvaluation based on the deviation of its price from predicted intrinsic value. Both under- and overvalued stocks identified by this misvaluation measure exhibit greater valuation uncertainty and arbitrage difficulty, and the misvaluation measure strongly predicts stock returns incremental to size, book-to-market ratio, past returns, and various return anomalies. Based on the misvaluation measure, we form a misvaluation factor and find that stock return covariances with this factor possess significant and robust return predictive power. We further show that the misvaluation factor predicts future economic conditions, providing additional insight into the real effect of systematic misvaluation in the stock market.     

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.     

Accounting Ratios and the Cross‐section of Expected Stock Returns

Under clean‐surplus accounting, the log return on a stock can be decomposed into a linear function of the contemporaneous log return on equity, the contemporaneous log dividend–price ratio (if the stock pays a dividend), and both the contemporaneous and lagged values of the log book‐to‐market equity ratio. This paper studies the implications of this decomposition for the cross‐section of conditional expected stock returns. The empirical analysis reveals that the log accounting ratios capture cross‐sectional variation in both the conditional mean and conditional variance of log stock returns, which is consistent with the decomposition. It also brings fresh insights to the relation between firm size (market equity) and conditional expected stock returns. The evidence indicates that the conditional median return increases with firm size, while the conditional return skewness decreases with firm size. Empirically, the skewness effect outweighs the median effect, leading to the well‐documented inverse relation between size and average returns. The results of out‐of‐sample tests suggest that investors could use the information provided by the observed values of the log accounting ratios to formulate more effective portfolio strategies.     

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.     

Aggregate Jump and Volatility Risk in the Cross‐Section of Stock Returns

We examine the pricing of both aggregate jump and volatility risk in the cross‐section of stock returns by constructing investable option trading strategies that load on one factor but are orthogonal to the other. Both aggregate jump and volatility risk help explain variation in expected returns. Consistent with theory, stocks with high sensitivities to jump and volatility risk have low expected returns. Both can be measured separately and are important economically, with a two‐standard‐deviation increase in jump (volatility) factor loadings associated with a 3.5% to 5.1% (2.7% to 2.9%) drop in expected annual stock returns.     

Probability of information-based trading and the January effect

We investigate the seasonality in the probability of information-based trading (PIN)–return relationship, the ‘January PIN effect’. We find that on average stock returns decrease with PIN in January, in contrast to other calendar months. This pattern is more apparent for small stocks. We argue that this seasonality is related to the January effect. According to the analysis, the December selling pressure associated with the January effect decreases in PIN, especially for small stocks. This suggests that when the price bounces back in January, low-PIN stocks will exhibit a larger return within a small stock group, leading to the negative PIN–return pattern. Furthermore, this seasonality is not the same as other January anomalies associated with momentum and idiosyncratic risk.     

Analysts’ Momentum Recommendations

We document that the likelihood of analyst recommendations following past stock returns decreased abruptly in 2003, coinciding with the Global Settlement and other regulatory changes designed to restrain analysts’ conflicts of interest. We also document that the likelihood of recommendations following past stock returns is abnormally high for recommendations issued after negative stock returns (but not for those issued after positive stock returns), among inexperienced and inaccurate analysts, among large brokerage houses, and for companies with high share turnover. Moreover, the recommendations that are more likely to follow past stock returns are accompanied by earnings forecast revisions that are larger in magnitude and less accurate ex post. Overall, our findings suggest that analysts with conflicts of interest and limited ability are more likely to base their recommendations on past stock returns. Finally, we document that the recommendations that are more likely to follow past stock returns (especially those that were issued before 2003 and those that are issued after negative stock returns) contribute to existing price momentum by generating incrementally stronger short‐term and long‐term stock returns.     

Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns

Motivated by existing evidence of a preference among investors for assets with lottery-like payoffs and that many investors are poorly diversified, we investigate the significance of extreme positive returns in the cross-sectional pricing of stocks. Portfolio-level analyses and firm-level cross-sectional regressions indicate a negative and significant relation between the maximum daily return over the past one month (MAX) and expected stock returns. Average raw and risk-adjusted return differences between stocks in the lowest and highest MAX deciles exceed 1% per month. These results are robust to controls for size, book-to-market, momentum, short-term reversals, liquidity, and skewness. Of particular interest, including MAX reverses the puzzling negative relation between returns and idiosyncratic volatility recently shown in 2 and 3.     

Cross‐Section of Expected Returns and Extreme Returns: The Role of Investor Attention and Risk Preferences

Previous work finds a negative and significant relation between the maximum daily return over the past one month and expected future stock returns. We determine that this effect is more pronounced for stocks that achieve their maximum daily returns toward the end of the month and stocks that are associated with capital losses show greater reversals. These results suggest the effect is related to investor attention and risk preferences.     

Nonlinearity and Flight‐to‐Safety in the Risk‐Return Trade‐Off for Stocks and Bonds

We document a highly significant, strongly nonlinear dependence of stock and bond returns on past equity market volatility as measured by the VIX. We propose a new estimator for the shape of the nonlinear forecasting relationship that exploits variation in the cross‐section of returns. The nonlinearities are mirror images for stocks and bonds, revealing flight‐to‐safety: expected returns increase for stocks when volatility increases from moderate to high levels while they decline for Treasuries. These findings provide support for dynamic asset pricing theories in which the price of risk is a nonlinear function of market volatility.     

Reversal of 3‐day losers and continuation of 3‐day winners on the NASDAQ

Using only the 200 large-cap securities that make up the NYSE 100 and NASDAQ 100, this study investigates 130 randomly selected formation periods from January 2000 through December 2012. During these formation periods, the three worst and three best performing stocks (based on excess return) are flagged. Once flagged, the subsequent 10-day holding period excess returns are calculated. Results indicate that NYSE securities demonstrate significant return reversal, but not return momentum. Conversely, the worst performing NASDAQ securities demonstrate return reversal, whereas the best performing NASDAQ securities demonstrate return momentum. Results are robust to the number of best and worst stocks that are flagged. Results are also robust to other combinations of formation and holding period lengths.     

Stock return volatility,operating performance and stock returns: International evidence on drivers of the ‘low volatility’ anomaly

This study highlights the link between stock return volatility, operating performance, and stock returns. Prior studies suggest that there is a ‘low volatility’ anomaly, where firms with a low stock return volatility out-perform firms with a high stock return volatility. This paper confirms that low volatility stocks earn higher returns than high volatility stocks in emerging markets and developed markets outside of North America. We also show that low volatility stocks have higher operating returns and this might explain why low volatility stocks earn higher stock returns. These results provide a partial explanation for the ‘low volatility effect’ that is independent from the existence of market anomalies or per se inefficiencies that might otherwise drive a low volatility effect. We emphasize the importance of controlling for stock return volatility when analyzing operating performance and stock performance.