UK mutual fund performance: Skill or luck?

Using a comprehensive data set on (surviving and non-surviving) UK equity mutual funds, we use a cross-section bootstrap methodology to distinguish between ‘skill’ and ‘luck’ for individual funds. This methodology allows for non-normality in the idiosyncratic risk of the funds — a major issue when considering those funds which appear to be either very good or very bad performers, since these are the funds which investors are primarily interested in identifying. Our study points to the existence of stock picking ability among a relatively small number of top performing UK equity mutual funds (i.e. performance which is not solely due to good luck). At the negative end of the performance scale, our analysis strongly rejects the hypothesis that most poor performing funds are merely unlucky. Most of these funds demonstrate ‘bad skill’. Recursive estimation and Kalman ‘smoothed’ coefficients indicate temporal stability in the ex-post performance alpha's of winner and loser portfolios. We also find performance persistence amongst loser but not amongst winner funds.     

Momentum in Australian style portfolios: risk or inefficiency?

Momentum strategies have been reported to be successful across a range of different markets and asset classes. Three possible explanations for momentum have been hypothesised: risk, return continuation and excessive co‐movement of stock returns compared with dividends. Lewellen (2002) adds to this literature by providing evidence of strong momentum returns in style portfolios that can be explained by negative cross‐serial correlation, a result which supports the excess co‐movement hypothesis. We report robust evidence of style momentum in the Australian market and use the Jegadeesh and Titman (1995) return decomposition to show that this momentum strategy is predominately explained by positive autocorrelation. Our results support the return continuation hypothesis and confirm Chen and Hong's (2002) assertion that Lewellen's (2002) explanation of style momentum returns does not stand up out‐of‐sample.     

Net share issues and the cross‐section of equity returns under a dividend imputation tax system

Despite considerable empirical evidence reporting a negative relationship between net share issuance and subsequent returns, it remains unresolved whether this anomaly is explained by risk or investor irrationality. This study examines the net share issuance anomaly using seasoned equity offerings before and after the introduction of an imputation tax system. We report robust evidence of a negative relationship between net share issuance and returns post‐imputation, but no relationship pre‐imputation. Our results provide evidence to support the international pervasiveness of the net share issuance anomaly, but more importantly suggest that this anomaly may be explained by risk.     

Anomalies and stock returns: Australian evidence

Prior research has identified the existence of several cross‐sectional patterns in equity returns, commonly referred to as effects. This paper tests for the existence of a number of well‐known effects using data from the Australian equities market. Specifically, we investigate the size effect, book‐to‐market effect, earnings‐to‐price effect, cashflow‐to‐price effect, leverage effect and the liquidity effect. An additional aim of this paper is to investigate the capability of the Fama–French model in explaining any observed effects. We document a size, book‐to‐market, earnings‐to‐price and cashflow‐to‐price effect but fail to find evidence of a leverage or liquidity effect. Although our findings indicate that the Fama–French model can partially explain some of the observed effects, we conclude that its performance is less than satisfactory in Australia.     

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 Australian asset‐pricing debate

Utilising a comprehensive data set for Australian firms, we examine a range of competing asset‐pricing models, including the four‐ and five‐factor models where the equity‐risk premium is augmented by size, value, momentum and liquidity premia, and find that none of the models tested appears to adequately explain the cross section of Australian returns. A model accounting for Australia's integration with the US equity market appears to be the best of the competing models we study. Our argument that a model recognising Australia's integration with the USA is supported when we apply the portfolio and factor construction methodology suggested by Brailsford et al. (2012a,b).