Implied Equity Duration: A Measure of Pandemic Shutdown Risk

Implied equity duration was originally developed to analyze the sensitivity of equity prices to discount rate changes. We demonstrate that implied equity duration is also useful for analyzing the sensitivity of equity prices to pandemic shutdowns. Pandemic shutdowns primarily impact short‐term cash flows, thus they have a greater impact on low‐duration equities. We show that implied equity duration has a strong positive relation to U.S. equity returns and analyst forecast revisions during the onset of the 2020 COVID‐19 shutdown. Our analysis also demonstrates that the underperformance of “value” stocks during this period is a rational response to their lower durations.     

Short‐Horizon Return Predictability in International Equity Markets

This study measures the degree of short‐horizon return predictability of 50 international equity markets and examines how its variation is related to the indicators of equity market development. Two multiple‐horizon variance ratio tests are employed to measure the degree of return predictability. We find evidence that return predictability is negatively correlated with publicly available indicators of equity market development. Our cross‐sectional regression analysis shows that the per capita gross domestic product, market turnover, investor protection, and absence of short‐selling restrictions are correlated with cross‐market variations in return predictability.     

A Consumption-Based Explanation of Expected Stock Returns

When utility is nonseparable in nondurable and durable consumption and the elasticity of substitution between the two consumption goods is sufficiently high, marginal utility rises when durable consumption falls. The model explains both the cross‐sectional variation in expected stock returns and the time variation in the equity premium. Small stocks and value stocks deliver relatively low returns during recessions, when durable consumption falls, which explains their high average returns relative to big stocks and growth stocks. Stock returns are unexpectedly low at business cycle troughs, when durable consumption falls sharply, which explains the countercyclical variation in the equity premium.     

Value versus growth: Australian evidence

The value‐growth effect is one of the most pervasive patterns in stock prices. In this study, the ability of four proxies for value‐growth, book‐to‐market, sales‐to‐price, earnings‐to‐price and cash‐flow‐to‐price to explain equity returns is analysed. The findings show that in aggregate, book‐to‐market best explains cross‐sectional variation in Australian equity returns, which in isolation suggests that it is the superior proxy for value‐growth. The analysis is taken further and the value‐growth effect is examined separately in positive and negative earnings firms. After segregating firms, it is found that in the negative earnings sample, book‐to‐market is the best value‐growth proxy and in the positive earnings sample, cash‐flow‐to‐price has the highest level of significance and is thus the superior value‐growth proxy. The economic significance of this result is telling, as the firms that report positive earnings are much larger than those that report negative earnings.     

The Determinants of Implied Volatility: A Test Using LIFFE Option Prices

This paper presents and tests a model of the volatility of individual companies' stocks, using implied volatilities derived from option prices. The data comes from traded options quoted on the London International Financial Futures Exchange. The model relates equity volatilities to corporate earnings announcements, interest-rate volatility and to four determining variables representing leverage, the degree of fixed-rate debt, asset duration and cash flow inflation indexation. The model predicts that equity volatility is positively related to duration and leverage and negatively related to the degree of inflation indexation and the proportion of fixed-rate debt in the capital structure. Empirical results suggest that duration, the proportion of fixed-rate debt, and leverage are significantly related to implied volatility. Regressions using all four determining variables explain approximately 30% of the cross-sectional variation in volatility. Time series tests confirm an expected drop in volatility shortly after the earnings announcement and in most cases a positive relationship between the volatility of the stock and the volatility of interest rates.     

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.     

Do Cash Flows of Growth Stocks Really Grow Faster?

Contrary to conventional wisdom, growth stocks (i.e., low book‐to‐market stocks) do not have substantially higher future cash‐flow growth rates than value stocks, in both rebalanced and buy‐and‐hold portfolios. Efficiency growth, survivorship and look‐back biases, and the rebalancing effect help explain the results. These findings suggest that duration alone is unlikely to explain the value premium.     

Downside beta and the cross section of equity returns: A decade later

This study reexamines the relation between downside beta and equity returns in the United States. First, we replicate the 2006 work of Ang, Chen, and Xing who find a positive relation between downside beta and future equity returns for equal‐weighted portfolios of NYSE stocks. We show that this relation doesn't hold after using value‐weighted returns or controlling for various return determinants. We also extend the original sample, add AMEX/NASDAQ stocks or utilize alternative downside beta measures and still find no downside risk premium. We focus on factor analysis results, persistence of downside beta, and various subsamples to understand the economic reasons behind the findings.     

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.     

Reexamining the Robustness of the Market Value of Equity

We apply the methodology of Knez and Ready (KR) (1997) to data from the Japanese stock market and reexamine the robustness of the risk premium for the market value of equity (MVE). In particular, we compare two alternative explanations for the relation between stock returns and MVE: the one pointed out by Fama and French (FF) (1992) and the other proposed by Berk (1995). Consistent with results for the U.S. market, when we check FF's explanation for MVE, we find that the risk premium for MVE is not robust against extreme observations. Besides the evidence supporting KR's findings, we study the role of MVE proposed by Berk (1995), who points out that under controlled expected cash flows, MVE will be negatively correlated with expected returns. After showing that MVE negatively correlates with risk in the presence of expected cash flows, we test the robustness of the relation between returns and MVE. We find that the estimated risk premium for MVE is robust when realized cash flows (earnings plus depreciation) or book value of equity (BE) is used as a proxy for expected cash flows.     

Divergence of US and Local Returns in the After‐market for Equity Issuing ADRs

We study one‐year post‐listing prices and returns to equity issuing ADRs that listed in the US between January 1991 and October 2000. ADRs from countries that impose restrictions on capital flows are priced at a premium to their home market ordinaries. While the mean premium for the full sample is statistically indistinguishable from zero, after an adjustment for asynchronous trading, the magnitude of the premium to ADRs from restricted markets is 11.33% at the 300‐day post listing interval, which is statistically significant. In the short run (30 days) following listing, the magnitude of the premium is larger for ADRs with larger excess demand from US investors. At the longer 300‐day horizon, Nasdaq listed ADRs earn a larger premium than their NYSE/AMEX listed counterparts. Time‐series regressions and two‐stage cross‐sectional regressions establish that the premium to foreign equity issuers is greater if the US listing attracts liquidity and if US returns have a lower correlation with the local country index.     

Volatility risk and the value premium: Evidence from the French stock market

This paper documents that systematic volatility risk is an important factor that drives the value premium observed in the French stock market. Using returns on at-the-money straddles written on the CAC 40 index as a proxy for systematic volatility risk, I document significant differences between volatility factor loadings of value and growth stocks. Furthermore, when markets are classified into expected booms and recessions, volatility factor loadings are also time-varying. When expected market risk premium is above its average, i.e. during expected recessions, value stocks are seen riskier than their growth counterparts. This implies in bad times, investors shift their preferences away from value firms. Instead they use growth stocks as hedges against deteriorations in their wealth during those times. The findings are in line with the predictions of rational asset pricing theory and support a “flight-to-quality” explanation.     

CEO inside debt and investment‐cash flow sensitivity

This paper provides a new explanation for investment‐cash flow sensitivity from the perspective of CEO inside debt holdings. We examine the effect of CEO pensions and deferred compensation (inside debt) on investment‐cash flow sensitivity for a sample of U.S. manufacturing firms from 2006 to 2012. We find that the firms with higher relative CEO leverage ratios (CEO's debt/equity ratio scaled by the firm's debt/equity ratio) generate higher investment‐cash flow sensitivity. Moreover, one standard deviation increase in the logarithm of the relative CEO leverage ratio enlarges investment‐cash flow sensitivity by 50 per cent. This positive relationship still holds even after we take account of endogeneity and financial constraints.     

Effect of Analysts' Optimism on Estimates of the Expected Rate of Return Implied by Earnings Forecasts

Recent literature has used analysts' earnings forecasts, which are known to be optimistic, to estimate implied expected rates of return, yielding upwardly biased estimates. We estimate that the bias, computed as the difference between the estimates of the implied expected rate of return based on analysts' earnings forecasts and estimates based on current earnings realizations, is 2.84%. The importance of this bias is illustrated by the fact that several extant studies estimate an equity premium in the vicinity of 3%, which would be eliminated by the removal of the bias. We illustrate the point that cross‐sample differences in the bias may lead to the erroneous conclusion that cost of capital differs across these samples by showing that analysts' optimism, and hence, bias in the implied estimates of the expected rate of return, differs with firm size and with analysts' recommendation. As an important aside, we show that the bias in a value‐weighted estimate of the implied equity premium is 1.60% and that the unbiased value‐weighted estimate of this premium is 4.43%.     

Predicting stock returns

This paper studies whether incorporating business cycle predictors benefits a real time optimizing investor who must allocate funds across 3,123 NYSE-AMEX stocks and cash. Realized returns are positive when adjusted by the Fama-French and momentum factors as well as by the size, book-to-market, and past return characteristics. The investor optimally holds small-cap, growth, and momentum stocks and loads less (more) heavily on momentum (small-cap) stocks during recessions. Returns on individual stocks are predictable out-of-sample due to alpha variation, whereas the equity premium predictability, the major focus of previous work, is questionable.     

Prediction of Operating Cash Flows: Further Evidence from Australia

This paper examines empirically the relative abilities of current operating cash flows (hereafter OCF) and earnings in predicting future operating cash flows in Australia. It extends prior Australian research on cash flow prediction ( Percy and Stokes 1992 ; Clinch, Sidhu and Sing 2002 ; Farshadfar, Ng and Brimble 2009 ) by examining future cash flow predictions for one‐, two‐ and three‐year‐ahead forecast horizons; incorporating additional contextual variables likely to affect the predictive association between current cash flows or earnings and future cash flows; and comparing cross‐sectional versus time series‐based prediction models to ascertain the relative superiority of one approach over the other. Regression results reveal that the cash flow‐based models are more accurate in predicting future operating cash flows than earnings‐based models. This result, however, is moderated by firm‐specific contextual factors like firm size, negative versus positive cash flow pattern, cash flow variability and firm operating cycle. Finally, a comparison between cross‐sectional and time series approaches reveals that the cross‐sectional model outperforms the time series model for both the operating cash flows and earnings models in most of the forecast years.     

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.     

The Equity Premium: Consistent with GDP Growth and Portfolio Insurance

We find that the long‐term equity premium is consistent with both GDP growth and portfolio insurance. We use a supply‐side growth model and demonstrate that the arithmetic average stock market return and the returns on corporate assets and debt depend on GDP per capita growth. The implied equity premium matches the U.S. historical average over 1926–2001. Separately, we find that the equity premium tracks the value of a put option on the S&P 500. Our theory predicts a smaller equity premium in the future, assuming that the recent regime shifts in dividend policies, interest rates, and tax rates are permanent.     

Is Investment‐Cash Flow Sensitivity Caused by Agency Costs or Asymmetric Information? Evidence from the UK

We investigate the investment‐cash flow sensitivity of a large sample of the UK listed firms and confirm that investment is strongly cash flow‐sensitive. Is this sensitivity a result of agency problems when managers with high discretion overinvest, or of asymmetric information when managers owning equity are underinvesting if the market (erroneously) demands too high a risk premium? We find that investment‐cash flow sensitivity results mainly from the agency costs of free cash flow. The magnitude of the relationship depends on insider ownership in a non‐monotonic way. Furthermore, we obtain that outside blockholders, such as financial institutions, the government, and industrial firms (only at high control levels), reduce the cash flow sensitivity of investment via effective monitoring. Finally, financial institutions appear to play a role in mitigating informational asymmetries between firms and capital markets. We corroborate our findings by performing additional tests based on the stochastic efficient frontier approach and power indices.     

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.