Investment Irreversibility,Cash Flow Risk,and Value‐Growth Stock Return Effects

We simulate results from a simple real options model to provide insight into the value‐growth stock return anomaly. In our model, firms possess either single (“value” firm) or multiple (“growth” firm) investment opportunities. Our model predicts that growth firms: (1) invest sooner, (2) exhibit greater continuity in capital expenditure over time, (3) have lower book‐to‐market ratios, and (4) generate lower rates of return than value firms.     

Where Is the Risk in Value? Evidence from a Market‐to‐Book Decomposition

We study the value premium using the multiples‐based market‐to‐book decomposition of Rhodes‐Kropf, Robinson, and Viswanathan (2005). The market‐to‐value component drives all of the value strategy return, while the value‐to‐book component exhibits no return predictability in either portfolio sorts or firm‐level regressions. Existing results linking market‐to‐book to operating leverage, duration, exposure to investment‐specific technology shocks, and analysts’ risk ratings derive from the unpriced value‐to‐book component. In contrast, results on expectation errors, limits to arbitrage, and certain types of cash flow risk and consumption risk exposure are due to the market‐to‐value component. Overall, our evidence casts doubt on several value premium theories.     

The Three‐Factor Model: A Practitioner's Guide

The three‐factor model (3FM) has slowly but steadily become a popular alternative to the CAPM for measuring risk from the perspective of both corporate finance and portfolio management. The evidence clearly shows a negative relationship between market capitalization and returns, and a positive relationship between the book‐to‐market ratio and returns. Under the assumption that size and value are risk factors, the 3FM incorporates a market risk premium, a size premium, and a value premium into a model that aims to assess risk in a more comprehensive way, and ultimately to provide a more reliable estimation of required return. The required return produced by the 3FM has corporate finance applications (such as cost of capital estimation, project evaluation, and firm valuation) as well as portfolio management applications (such as performance evaluation). This article discusses the foundations and intuition behind the 3FM, as well as its application to the estimation of the cost of equity and excess returns.     

What Cost of Capital Should You Use? The Market Has an Answer

The most widely used means of estimating a company's cost of equity capital is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). But as a growing number of academics and practitioners have suggested, use of the CAPM produces estimates that often fail to reflect the risks of the companies as perceived by current and potential investors. The authors' work, together with other research, also suggests that the cost of equity produced by the CAPM is often too high. To the extent this is so, companies are discounting investment projects at rates of return that may be leading them to pass up value‐adding opportunities. The authors advocate the use of a simple and practical alternative to the CAPM that does not use either an assumed market risk premium or a beta. It uses instead an equity premium that is implied by the current market price of a company's stock and, as such, is implicitly derived from investors' assessments of the firm's risk that are reflected in that price. More specifically, the alternative approach solves for the internal rate of return that equates the present value of expected future cash flows to the current market price. In support of this approach, studies have shown that such market‐implied measures are better predictors than CAPM‐based estimates of future stock returns, both at the individual‐firm and aggregate market levels.     

Intangible capital,volatility shock,and the value premium

This paper extends the canonical, neoclassical investment‐based asset‐pricing model through the incorporation of intangible capital and the formulation of a joint productivity distribution with economic uncertainty shocks at the firm level. The distinctive evolutionary dynamics of intangible capital as opposed to that of physical capital mitigate the negative impact of temporary uncertainty shock on production and serve well to explain the value premium with modest assumptions. The value premium is unconditionally positive, but the realized value spread plummets to negative after major transient second‐moment shocks, for example, the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the 9/11 terrorist attack.     

Accruals and the Conditional Equity Premium

Accruals correlate closely with the determinants of the conditional equity premium at both the firm and the aggregate levels. The common component of firm‐level accruals, which cannot be diversified away by aggregation, explains the positive relation between aggregate accruals and future stock market returns. The residual component, which accounts for most variation in firm‐level accruals, is responsible for the negative cross‐sectional relation between firm‐level accruals and future stock returns. Consistent with the risk‐based explanation, aggregate accruals, as a proxy for the conditional equity premium, forecast changes in aggregate economic activity. Moreover, we document a similar comovement of earnings with the conditional equity premium at both the firm and the aggregate levels, which helps explain the negative relation between changes in aggregate earnings and contemporaneous market returns.     

IS THE BOOK‐TO‐MARKET RATIO A MEASURE OF RISK?

We develop a leverage‐based alternative to traditional asset pricing models to investigate whether the book‐to‐market ratio acts as a proxy for risk. We argue that the book‐to‐market ratio should act as a proxy because of the expected relations between (1) financial risk and measures of capital structure based on the market value of equity and (2) asset risk and measures of capital structure based on the book value of equity. We find no relation between average stock returns and the book‐to‐market ratio in all‐equity firms after controlling for firm size, and an inverse relation between average stock returns and the book‐to‐market ratio in firms with a negative book value of equity.     

Real Options,Volatility, and Stock Returns

We provide evidence that the positive relation between firm‐level stock returns and firm‐level return volatility is due to firms’ real options. Consistent with real option theory, we find that the positive volatility‐return relation is much stronger for firms with more real options and that the sensitivity of firm value to changes in volatility declines significantly after firms exercise their real options. We reconcile the evidence at the aggregate and firm levels by showing that the negative relation at the aggregate level may be due to aggregate market conditions that simultaneously affect both market returns and return volatility.     

Conditional Equity Premium and Aggregate Corporate Investment

We document a strong negative relation between aggregate corporate investment and conditional equity premium estimated from direct stock market risk measures. Consistent with the investment-based asset pricing model, the comovement with conditional equity premium fully accounts for aggregate investment's market return predictive power. Similarly, conditional equity premium is a significant determinant of classic Tobin's q measure, although q has much weaker explanatory power for aggregate investment possibly because of its measurement errors. Moreover, the positive relation between aggregate investment and investor sentiment documented in previous studies reflects the fact that both variables correlate closely with conditional equity premium.     

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.     

The Elastic Provision of Liquidity by Private Agents

I study a model of investment by financially constrained firms that are heterogeneous with respect to their exposure to an aggregate liquidity shock. A firm that is susceptible to the shock will mitigate its exposure by purchasing claims issued by a firm that is not. Liabilities of an unaffected firm may earn a liquidity premium due to their fungibility, and because they are backed by productive investment, their supply is elastic to the demand. This segmentation implies that an aggregate liquidity shock has different consequences across sectors of the economy.     

Investability and Firm Value

We study how investability, or openness to foreign equity investors, affects firm value in a sample of over 1,400 firms from 26 emerging markets. We find that, on average, investability is associated with a 9% valuation premium (as measured by Tobin's q). This significant valuation premium persists in firm‐fixed effects regressions, although the magnitude and robustness of the premium is somewhat lower. Analysis of the components of Tobin's q shows that firms that become investable experience significant increases in both market values and physical investment. These effects are strongest for firms that face country‐level or firm‐level financial constraints prior to becoming investable.     

Tangibility and investment irreversibility in asset pricing

Zhang (2005) and Cooper (2006) provide a theoretical risk‐based explanation for the value premium by suggesting a nexus between firms’ book‐to‐market ratio and investment irreversibility. They argue that unproductive physical capacity is costly in contracting conditions but provides growth opportunities during economic expansions, resulting in covariant risk between firms’ investment in tangible assets and market‐wide returns. This article uses the Australian accounting environment to empirically test this theory – a test that is not possible using US data. Consistent with the theoretical argument, tangibility is priced in equity returns, and augmenting the Fama and French three‐factor model with a tangibility factor increases model explanatory power.     

The Real Options Component and Market Value of Taiwan Technological Companies

Real options valuation has been applied in real investment extensively. However the empirical researches of real options components’ value are seldom studied. This study uses the panel data model to test whether the stock prices of Taiwan listed companies reflect investor’s expectations regarding the value of real options. This article demonstrates that investors cannot ignore the real options components when evaluating stock market value. The results also confirm that the proportion of a firm’s market value not due to assets-in-place is significantly and positively related to the variables of stock beta, skewness of stock returns, size, capital stock, and research and development. In addition, firms with lower firm life cycle have a higher real options value.     

资本支出、公司规模与账面市值比效应——基于A股上市公司的研究

基于成熟资本市场的理论及实证研究表明,在不确定的环境下,公司最优资本支出提高了市场价值,降低了账面市值比,账面市值比对收益率的预测作用可以通过公司的最优投资行为来解释。基于这一机制,本文对我国上市公司规模、资本支出及账面市值比效应进行了研究。我们发现,第一,按照Fama-French(1992,1993)方法构建投资组合的潜在条件同样是公司前期的资本支出,本期资本支出在提高公司市场价值的同时,非但没有降低反而提高了小规模组公司期末账面市值比;第二,控制规模的情况下,资本支出较显著降低了公司的预期收益,在大规模公司中表现最明显;第三,本期资本支出对规模效应具有一定解释力,但对账面市值比效应并不具有显著解释力;第四,我国上市公司股票价格变动更多由会计业绩变动决定而非风险变动所决定,据此对上述发现作出了尝试性的解释。     

Why Is Long‐Horizon Equity Less Risky? A Duration‐Based Explanation of the Value Premium

We propose a dynamic risk‐based model that captures the value premium. Firms are modeled as long‐lived assets distinguished by the timing of cash flows. The stochastic discount factor is specified so that shocks to aggregate dividends are priced, but shocks to the discount rate are not. The model implies that growth firms covary more with the discount rate than do value firms, which covary more with cash flows. When calibrated to explain aggregate stock market behavior, the model accounts for the observed value premium, the high Sharpe ratios on value firms, and the poor performance of the CAPM.     

Earnings quality and firm valuation: international evidence*

This study uses a sample of over 7000 firms in 38 countries to investigate the relation between firm valuation and earnings quality. We find a positive and significant relation between firm valuation and an aggregate earnings quality measure based on seven earnings attributes (accruals quality, persistence, predictability, smoothness, value relevance, timeliness, and conservatism). This relation is particularly strong for firms with greater investment opportunities and more need for external finance, and for firms in low investor protection countries. Thus, firms are able to compensate for a weak legal environment by adopting higher earnings quality standards, particularly when they need to gain access to global capital markets. Overall, our findings suggest that firms with higher earnings quality are valued more highly in stock markets, supporting the idea that investors require a premium for the information risk associated with lower‐quality earnings.     

The Impact of Ambiguity on Managerial Investment and Cash Holdings

Standard finance theory suggests that managers invest in projects that, in expectation, produce returns that justify the use of capital. An underlying assumption is that managers have the information necessary to understand the distributional properties of the pay‐offs underlying the decision. This paper examines firm investment behavior when managers are likely to find it more challenging to develop expectations of pay‐offs, namely during periods of increased macroeconomic ambiguity. In particular, we examine how macroeconomic ambiguity – proxied by the variance premium (Drechsler, 2010 ) and the dispersion in forecasts of corporate profits from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (Anderson et al., 2009 ) – impacts managerial capital investment and cash holdings. Consistent with ambiguity theory, we find that macroeconomic ambiguity is negatively associated with capital investment and positively associated with cash holdings. These results are robust to alternative explanations related to risk, investor sentiment and economic conditions. Moreover, consistent with recent theoretical real options literature, we find that ambiguity reduces the value of investment opportunities, while risk increases the value of such opportunities. Overall, these findings provide initial empirical evidence on the economic distinction between ambiguity and risk with respect to managerial investment and cash holdings.     

An Analysis of the Underreported Magnitude of the Total Indirect Costs of Financial Distress

In this paper we examine 1,041 ongoing firms over the time period 1982–92. Using quarterly data for the detection and measurement of the magnitude of the indirect costs of financial distress, we find three important explanatory factors: (a) the distinctiveness of the pattern of increasing financial distress over time, (b) the degree of leverage in the capital structure and (c) the size of the firm. For those firms with a distinctive pattern of increasing financial distress over time, the average annual losses as a percentage of market value is –10.3%. The maximum loss is –76%. Even if the firm never fails, its market value can be severely impacted by the presence of the indirect costs of bankruptcy over time. This study finds a significantly positive relationship between Altman's Z-score and the firm capital investment growth rate. This relation holds after controlling for other variables such as leverage, firm size and market/book ratio. This implies that lost investment opportunities may be also an important part of the total indirect costs of financial distress, which appear now to be much larger than previously recorded.     

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.