Risk-Adjusted Performances of World Equity Indices

This article investigates whether equity indices of twenty-four emerging and twenty-eight developed markets compensate their investors equally after adjusting for total or downside risk, and examines the predictive power of reward-to-risk ratios for expected market returns. We find that when all fifty-two markets are ranked based on their alternative reward-to-risk ratios, almost all of the countries in the top (bottom) quartile are emerging (developed) markets. The pooled means of the reward-to-risk ratios are also significantly higher for emerging markets. Both portfolio and regressions analysis reveal that there is a significantly positive relation between various reward-to-risk metrics and expected market returns.     

Oil market uncertainty and excess returns on currency carry trade

This paper examines the role of oil market uncertainty on currency carry trade payoffs. We find that oil market uncertainty can impact currency carry trade excess returns. When oil market uncertainty rises, expected currency excess returns will increase. Our findings are robust to alternative measures of oil market uncertainty and, after controlling for traditional uncertainties, different types of oil shocks. The results also hold well in both developed and emerging markets, as well as for oil-related currencies, non-oil currencies, commodity currencies, and non-commodity currencies. Additionally, oil market uncertainty can be priced in the cross section of currency carry trade excess returns. This effect can be explained by investors becoming more risk averse under high oil market uncertainty and requiring greater compensation for bearing such risk. Moreover, our measure of oil market uncertainty, the downside risk from the oil market, is quite different from that of traditional aggregate measures.     

Extreme downside risk and market turbulence

We investigate the dynamics of the relationship between returns and extreme downside risk in different states of the market by combining the framework of Bali et al. [Is there an intertemporal relation between downside risk and expected returns? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2009, 44, 883–909] with a Markov switching mechanism. We show that the risk-return relationship identified by Bali et al. (2009) is highly significant in the low volatility state but disappears during periods of market turbulence. This is puzzling since it is during such periods that downside risk should be most prominent. We show that the absence of the risk-return relationship in the high volatility state is due to leverage and volatility feedback effects arising from increased persistence in volatility. To better filter out these effects, we propose a simple modification that yields a positive tail risk-return relationship in all states of market volatility.     

Value-at-risk and the cross section of emerging market hedge fund returns

This paper examines the cross-sectional relationship between downside risk (Value at Risk) and expected returns in a sample of 1370 emerging market hedge funds (EMHF). We find that downside risk significantly drives expected returns for these funds, particularly before the global financial crisis, commanding an annual risk premium of over 12%. While EMHF differ from their advanced market counterparts in risk/return patterns, we show that the global financial crisis of 2008 has caused a structural shift in that pattern. Finally, we show that the risk premium associated with downside risk is predictable by the global financial cycle, even after we control for emerging market systematic risk factors.     

Rewards for downside risk in Asian markets

Distributional properties of emerging market returns may impact on investor ability and willingness to diversify. Investors may also place greater weighting on downside losses, compared to upside gains. Using individual equities in a range of emerging Asian markets, we investigate the potential contribution of downside risk measures to explain asset pricing in these markets. As realized returns are used as a proxy for expected returns, we separately examine conditional returns in upturn and downturn periods, in order to successfully identify risk and return relationships. Results indicate that co-skewness and downside beta are priced by investors. Further testing confirms a separate premium for each measure, confirming that they capture different aspects of downside risk. Robustness tests indicate that, when combined with other risk measures, both retain their explanatory power. Tests also indicate that co-skewness may be the more robust measure.     

Accounting-based downside risk and expected stock returns: Evidence from China

We document that earnings downside risk contains information on firms' future operating performance and is positively associated with expected stock returns in Chinese stock markets, and the return predictability of earning downside risk mainly comes from its accrual downside risk component. The pricing of earnings downside risk is especially evident among firms with more transparent information environment and stronger governance efficacy, such as large firms, non-high-tech firms, old firms, and firms with high analyst coverage. Lastly, we show that aggregated earnings downside risk and its components at the market level are all significantly and positively associated with subsequent stock market returns, which is consistent with the notion that the accounting-based downside risk measures contain information about future macroeconomic conditions.     

Stock Liquidity Risk and the Cross‐sectional Earnings‐Returns Relationship

We argue that a higher sensitivity to aggregate market‐wide liquidity shocks (i.e., a higher liquidity risk) implies a tendency for a stock's price to converge to fundamentals. We test this intuition within the framework of the earnings‐returns relationship. We find a positive liquidity risk effect on the relationship between return and expected change in earnings. This effect on the earnings‐returns relationship is distinct from the negative effect observed for stock illiquidity level. Notably, the liquidity risk effect is evident (absent) during periods of neutral/low (high) aggregate market liquidity. We also show that the liquidity risk effect is dominant in firms that: (a) are of intermediate size; (b) are of intermediate book‐to‐market; and (c) are profit making.     

Life Insurer Cost of Equity with Asymmetric Risk Factors

This study presents an improved model for estimating life insurer cost of capital with the inclusion of upside and downside risk factors and controlling for life insurer characteristics. Although various asymmetric measures of market risk have been shown to be priced factors for the broader equity market, life insurer realized equity returns include a much larger premium for bearing downside risk, even after controlling for firm characteristics and other measures of risk. Cross‐sectional regression analysis finds a positive (negative) premium for downside (upside) betas, conditional on down and up markets, respectively. Coskewness and cokurtosis are also priced factors.     

Delayed Expected Loss Recognition and the Risk Profile of Banks

This paper investigates the extent to which delayed expected loan loss recognition (DELR) is associated with greater vulnerability of banks to three distinct dimensions of risk: (1) stock market liquidity risk, (2) downside tail risk of individual banks, and (3) codependence of downside tail risk among banks. We hypothesize that DELR increases vulnerability to downside risk by creating expected loss overhangs that threaten future capital adequacy and by degrading bank transparency, which increases financing frictions and opportunities for risk‐shifting. We find that DELR is associated with higher correlations between bank‐level illiquidity and both aggregate banking sector illiquidity and market returns (i.e., higher liquidity risks) during recessions, suggesting that high DELR banks as a group may simultaneously face elevated financing frictions and enhanced opportunities for risk‐shifting behavior in crisis periods. With respect to downside risk, we find that during recessions DELR is associated with significantly higher risk of individual banks suffering severe drops in their equity values, where this association is magnified for banks with low capital levels. Consistent with increased systemic risk, we find that DELR is associated with significantly higher codependence between downside risk of individual banks and downside risk of the banking sector. We theorize that downside risk vulnerability at the individual bank level can translate into systemic risk by virtue of DELR creating a common source of risk vulnerability across high DELR banks simultaneously, which leads to risk codependence among banks and systemic effects from banks acting as part of a herd.     

Does herding behavior exist in Chinese stock markets?

This paper examines the presence of herd formation in Chinese markets using both individual firm- and sector-level data. We analyze the behavior of return dispersions during periods of unusually large upward and downward changes in the market index. We also distinguish between the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges at the sector-level. Our findings indicate that herd formation does not exist in Chinese markets. We find that equity return dispersions are significantly higher during periods of large changes in the aggregate market index. However, comparing return dispersions for upside and downside movements of the market, we observe that return dispersions during extreme downside movements of the market are much lower than those for upside movements, indicating that stock returns behave more similarly during down markets. The findings support rational asset pricing models and market efficiency. Policy implications of the results for policymakers are discussed.     

Downside and upside risk spillovers between exchange rates and stock prices

We examined downside and upside risk spillovers from exchange rates to stock prices and vice versa for a set of emerging economies. We characterized the dependence structure between currency and stock returns using copulas and computed downside and upside value-at-risk and conditional value-at-risk. We documented a positive relationship between stock prices and currency values in emerging economies with respect to the US dollar and the euro, with downside and upside spillover risk effects transmitted both ways. Finally, we also documented asymmetries in upside and downside risk spillovers and asymmetric differences in the size of risk spillovers when the domestic currency values against the US dollar and the euro. Our results, consistent with flight-to-quality phenomena, have implications for downside and upside risk management of international investor portfolios in emerging markets.     

Extreme downside risk spillover from the United States and Japan to Asia-Pacific stock markets

This paper proposes a binary response model approach to measure and forecast extreme downside risks in Asia-Pacific markets given information on extreme downside risks in the U.S. and Japanese markets. The extreme downside risk of a market is measured as the occurrence of extreme downside movement—market returns falling below left-tail Value at Risk in a Markov switching framework. The empirical findings are consistent with the following notions. First, extreme downside movements of the S&P 500 and Nikkei 225 are significantly predictive for the likelihood of extreme downside movements in all the investigated Asia-Pacific markets. Second, the majority of Asia-Pacific markets become more sensitive to Japan's extreme downside risk when the Japanese market switches into high volatility periods, whereas the U.S. spillover effect is intensified only on Taiwan during high volatility periods in the U.S. Third, mainland China is the least sensitive to extreme downside risk in the U.S. and Japan, Australia is the most sensitive to the U.S., and Singapore is the most sensitive to Japan.     

Asymmetric Volatility,Skewness, and Downside Risk in Different Asset Classes: Evidence from Futures Markets

This study examines the cross‐sectional variation of futures returns from different asset classes. The monthly returns are positively correlated with downside risk and negatively correlated with coskewness. The asymmetric volatility effect generates negatively skewed returns. Assets with high coskewness and low downside betas provide hedges against market downside risk and offer low returns. The high returns offered by assets with low coskewness and high downside betas are a risk premium for bearing downside risk. The asset pricing model that incorporates downside risk partially explains the futures returns. The results indicate a unified risk perspective to jointly price different asset classes.     

Currency excess returns and global downside market risk

We assess cross-sectional differences in 23 bilateral currency excess returns in an empirical model that distinguishes between US-specific and global risks, conditional on US bull (upside) or bear (downside) markets. Using the US dollar as numeraire currency, our results suggest that global downside risk is compensated in conditional and unconditional, bilateral currency excess returns. This finding is mostly driven by the emerging markets' currencies in our sample. We also find that the link between the global downside risk and risks associated with a typical carry trade strategy is much weaker for emerging markets' currencies than for developed markets' currencies.     

Is co-skewness a better measure of risk in the downside than downside beta?: Evidence in emerging market data

We define three measure of systematic co-skewness risk in a downside framework by extending three downside beta risk measures in the literature. In pricing models in a downside framework it may be sufficient to include a risk measure that accounts for co-semi-variance or co-semi-skewness and not both. Downside risk is appropriate when returns distribution is skewed—a common feature in emerging markets. A cross-sectional analysis provides evidence that downside co-skewness is a better explanatory variable of emerging market monthly returns than downside beta. Our conclusions remain largely unchanged when the analysis is subjected to various robustness checks.     

The relationship between stock returns and volatility in international stock markets

This study examines the relationship between expected stock returns and volatility in the 12 largest international stock markets during January 1980 to December 2001. Consistent with most previous studies, we find a positive but insignificant relationship during the sample period for the majority of the markets based on parametric EGARCH-M models. However, using a flexible semiparametric specification of conditional variance, we find evidence of a significant negative relationship between expected returns and volatility in 6 out of the 12 markets. The results lend some support to the recent claim [Bekaert, G., Wu, G., 2000. Asymmetric volatility and risk in equity markets. Review of Financial Studies 13, 1–42; Whitelaw, R., 2000. Stock market risk and return: an empirical equilibrium approach. Review of Financial Studies 13, 521–547] that stock market returns are negatively correlated with stock market volatility.     

Payment For Risk: Constant Beta Vs. Dual-Beta Models

Fama and French's (1992) assertion that investors receive premium payments for risk associated with the book value to market price (BE/ME) and size and not for holding beta risk has sparked a lively debate concerning risk factors that are priced in the market. Howton and Peterson (1998) use a dual-beta model to test the Fama and French conclusions. They conclude that the significant relationship between beta and returns depends on the use of the dual-beta model. This work, however, ignores the results reported by Pettengill, Sundaram, and Mathur (PSM, 1995). PSM find a significant relation between a constant risk beta and returns when data are segmented between up and down markets, but do not consider the impact of size and BE/ME. In this paper we show that the PSM (1995) market segmentation procedure alone provides a sufficient condition to identify a significant relation between beta and returns in the presence of size and BE/ME. Dual market betas may be relevant in explaining risk and return. However, the market segmentation procedure of PSM (1995) is the critical condition for finding a significant relationship between returns and betas.     

Returns transmission, value at risk, and diversification benefits in international REITs: evidence from the financial crisis

We examine daily cross-market return interactions and downside risk between a US REIT returns index and the return indexes of twelve international REIT markets. These relationships are investigated for a period of normal REIT market conditions as well as for periods of inflating and collapsing REIT prices. We find that US REIT returns are contemporaneously correlated with other REITs most strongly during the bubble and crash market conditions where the US REIT market is an almost unilateral transmitter of returns. We also find that the Value at Risk (VaR) of the least capitalized REIT markets is proportionally higher during base/normal market conditions but that the largest REIT markets have the highest VaR contribution during the crash (financial crisis) period. Overall, our evidence indicates that REIT market risk shifted to the largest REIT markets and that diversification benefits eroded considerably during turbulent market conditions.     

Recovering risk aversion from option prices and realized returns

A relationship exists between aggregate risk-neutral and subjectiveprobability distributions and risk aversion functions. We empiricallyderive risk aversion functions implied by options prices andrealized returns on the S&P500 index simultaneously. Theserisk aversion functions dramatically change shapes around the1987 crash: Precrash, they are positive and decreasing in wealthand largely consistent with standard assumptions made in economictheory. Postcrash, they are partially negative and partiallyincreasing and irreconcilable with those assumptions. Mispricingin the option market is the most likely cause. Simulated tradingstrategies exploiting this mispricing show excess returns, evenafter accounting for the possibility of further crashes, transactioncosts, and hedges against the downside risk.     

A novel downside beta and expected stock returns

A number of studies have found that the cross-section of stock returns reflects a risk premium for bearing downside beta; however, existing measures of downside beta have poor power for predicting returns. This paper proposes a novel measure of downside beta, the ES-implied beta, to improve the prediction of the cross-section of asset returns. The ES-implied beta explains stock returns over the same period as well as the widely used downside beta, but improves the prediction for future returns due to its high persistence. In the empirical analysis, the widely used downside beta shows a weak relation with future expected returns, but the ES-implied beta implies a statistically and economically significant risk premium of 0.6% per month and explains 0.6% of the variation in the cross-sectional returns. The effect cannot be explained by traditional cross-sectional effects and is different from the CAPM beta, the downside beta in Ang et al. (2006), coskewness, and cokurtosis.