Characteristics, Covariances, and Average Returns: 1929 to 1997

The value premium in U.S. stock returns is robust. The positive relation between average return and book-to-market equity is as strong for 1929 to 1963 as for the subsequent period studied in previous papers. A three-factor risk model explains the value premium better than the hypothesis that the book-to-market characteristic is compensated irrespective of risk loadings.     

Does Default Probability Matter in Latin American Emerging Markets?

We analyze the impact of default probability in four leading Latin American stock markets: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. We find no positive default-risk premium except in the case of Brazil, and in fact we find a negative risk premium for Argentina and Mexico. The latter effect tends to fade when the analysis accounts for size and book-to-market variables. Although we find no size effect in any of the markets considered, the book-to-market effect is very strong in all of them, and our results reveal a consistent relationship, analogous to that found in more developed markets, between default probability and the size and book-to-market variables.     

Optimal Investment, Growth Options, and Security Returns

As a consequence of optimal investment choices, a firm's assets and growth options change in predictable ways. Using a dynamic model, we show that this imparts predictability to changes in a firm's systematic risk, and its expected return. Simulations show that the model simultaneously reproduces: (i) the time-series relation between the book-to-market ratio and asset returns; (ii) the cross-sectional relation between book-to-market, market value, and return; (iii) contrarian effects at short horizons; (iv) momentum effects at longer horizons; and (v) the inverse relation between interest rates and the market risk premium.     

Can Operating Leverage Be the Cause of the Value Premium?

Recent theoretical models (Carlson, Fisher, and Giammarino, 2004) predict an association between the book-to-market equity ratio (BE/ME) and operating leverage in the cross-section. Consistent with these models, we find a positive association between BE/ME and the degree of operating leverage (DOL), between DOL and stock returns, and between DOL and systematic risk. Overall, our findings provide support for a risk-based explanation for the value premium that is consistent with existing theoretical models. The evolution of systematic risk associated with firm-level investment activity, rather than financial distress, seems to be the main determinant of the value premium.     

中国股市规模效应和账面市值比效应的实证分析

本文以2002—2010年中国A股股票作为研究对象,对中国股市的规模效应和账面市值比效应进行了实证分析。结果表明,在样本期间内中国股市存在规模效应和账面市值比效应,而且规模效应不具有显著性、账面市值比效应具有显著性。本文认为风险溢价和投资者非理性行为的综合作用是规模效应和账面市值比效应产生的主要原因。     

Glamour and Value Strategies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange

This paper evaluates the performance of glamour and value strategies and tests the extrapolation model for the Japanese equity market. In general, value stocks outperform glamour stocks by between 6 and 12 percent per annum for the five years after portfolio formation. Evidence from past, future and expected growth provides strong support for the story developed in Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994). It is difficult to attribute the value premia to the difference, if any, in risk factors. In addition, the book-to-market premium is much closer to an arbitrage opportunity than the size premium.     

Value versus Growth: The International Evidence

Value stocks have higher returns than growth stocks in markets around the world. For the period 1975 through 1995, the difference between the average returns on global portfolios of high and low book-to-market stocks is 7.68 percent per year, and value stocks outperform growth stocks in twelve of thirteen major markets. An international capital asset pricing model cannot explain the value premium, but a two-factor model that includes a risk factor for relative distress captures the value premium in international returns.     

Why does book-to-market value of equity forecast cross-section stock returns?

In this paper, we derive a model of book-to-market value of equity based on the present value model and estimate it using panel data on individual stocks. We explicitly include in the model all the determinants of book-to-market except the firm-specific discount rate, which we capture using fixed individual effects in the panel data model. The model is particularly successful, explaining nearly 90% of the time series and cross-section variation in the ratio of book-to-market value of equity. Moreover, the estimated firm-specific fixed effects are more successful than the most recent book-to-market value of equity in forecasting subsequent returns. This is consistent with an efficient market in which book-to-market is a proxy for risk.     

Arbitrage risk and the turnover anomaly

A strong turnover premium exists such that stocks with lower turnover have higher future returns in the 5 years following their formation than those with higher turnover. This turnover premium cannot be explained by existing asset-pricing models, a risk-based liquidity factor, or anomalies such as size, book-to-market ratio, or momentum. Further analysis indicates that the turnover premium is greater for stocks with higher idiosyncratic volatility, higher transaction costs, lower institutional ownership, and lower investor sophistication, which implies it is consistent with the mispricing explanation based on arbitrage risk.     

Can Risk-Based Theories Explain the Value Premium?

This paper shows that some of the most prominent risk-basedtheories offered as explanation for the value premium are atodds with data. The models proposed by Fama and French (1993),Lettau and Ludvingson (2001), Campbell and Vuolteenaho (2004),and Yogo (2006) can capture the cross-section of returns ofportfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and size, but notof portfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and institutionalownership. These models generate economically large pricingerrors in all the institutional ownership quintiles and eachstatistical test indicates that these pricing errors are significant.More generally, these results show that a minor alteration ofthe test assets can lead to a dramatically different answerregarding the validity of a given asset pricing model.     

Cashflow risk,systematic earnings revisions,and the cross-section of stock returns

The returns of stocks are partially driven by changes in their expected cashflow. Using revisions in analyst earnings forecasts, we construct an analyst earnings beta that measures the covariance between the cashflow innovations of an asset and those of the market. A higher analyst earnings beta implies greater sensitivity to marketwide revisions in expected cashflow, and therefore higher systematic risk. Our analyst earnings beta captures exposure to macroeconomic fluctuations and has a positive risk premium that provides a partial explanation for the value premium, size premium, and long-term return reversals. From 1984 to 2005, 55.1% of the return variation across book-to-market, size, and long-term return reversal portfolios is captured by their analyst earnings betas.     

Cross-sectional analysis of Swedish stock returns with time-varying beta: the Swedish stock market 1983–96

This paper analyses the ability of beta and other factors, like firm size and book-to-market, to explain cross‐sectional variation in average stock returns on the Swedish stock market for the period 1983–96. We use a bivariate GARCH(1,1) process to estimate time-varying betas for asset returns. The estimated variances of these betas, derived from a Taylor series approximation, are used for correcting errors in variables. An extreme bound analysis is utilized for testing the sensitivity of the estimated coefficients to changes in the set of included explanatory variables.
Our results show that the estimated conditional beta is a more accurate measure of the true market beta than the beta estimated by OLS. The coefficient for beta is not significantly different from zero, while the variables book-to-market and leverage have significant coefficients, and the latter coefficients are also robust to model specification. Excluding the down turn 1990–92 from the sample shows that the significance of the risk premium for leverage might be considered as an industry effect during this extreme period. Finally, we find a close dependence between the risk premium for beta and that for size and book-to-market. The omission of each of these variables may cause statistical bias in the estimated coefficient for beta.     

The reliability of the book-to-market ratio as a risk proxy

This study examines whether the book-to-market ratio consistently explains the cross-section of stock returns through time. The results reveal that the book-to-market ratio is positively and significantly related to return in only 43% of the monthly regressions. Other value/growth variables such as Cash Flow,” “Sales Growth,” and “Size”; perform even more erratically than the book-to-market ratio, and are thus less likely to be viewed as legitimate risk proxies.     

The Effect of the Alternation in the Ruling Party on Three-Factor Risks and Returns in ETF: The Case of Presidential Elections in Taiwan

This study discusses the effect of alternation in the ruling party in presidential elections on three-factor risks and returns of the three main exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in Taiwan, which has an unclearly defined international status and whose citizens have the right to vote directly for the president. We find that after the ruling party has been determined, in the period between Election Day and inauguration day, both the stock market and ETFs show a slight rise in prices. This suggests that most investors are initially optimistic after the election results have been announced. Meanwhile, the reverse book-to-market risk value deteriorates significantly. These results indicate that political uncertainty increases the risk premium of market factors and reverse book-to-market factors for some ETFs.     

The investment value of the value premium

Value investment strategies are premised on research that value stocks outperform growth stocks. However, the research findings are dependent on the portfolio classification method that is used to sort stocks using the attributes of size and book-to-market ratios. Different stock markets contain different distributions of stocks, and in many markets, illiquidity concerns combined with a lack of investment scale, effectively create barriers to practical portfolio formations that align with the research. This study conducts a case study on one such market (Australia) and demonstrates that different methods of portfolio formation lead to different conclusions. For example, previous studies in Australia find evidence of the value premium only being present in the largest stocks, in contrast to the results from the US market. However, we find a value premium that is systematic across all size categories and generally increases inversely with size. Further, we find the well-documented size premium largely disappears once portfolios are formed that better represent feasible investment sets and once ‘penny dreadfuls’ are removed. Finally, asset pricing tests support the existence of a value premium in Australian stock returns when a more appropriate portfolio formation method is employed.     

Default Risk and Equity Returns: Evidence from the Taiwan Equities Market

Studies of risk and return characteristics of different portfolios have recently gained enormous attention. Differing from past studies, this paper uses a compound option model to build the proxy of default risk and evaluate the relationship between default risk effect and equity returns. The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate the relationship among default risk, size, book-to-market, and equity returns, using data drawn from the Taiwan equities market, and to also examine whether size and book-to-market are proxies for default risk. The results show that the effects of size and book-to-market exist in different default portfolios when default risks are controlled. If size or book-to-market is controlled, there are no default effects. In the regression analysis, when default risk is included in Fama and French’s Three Factor Model, it shows that size, book-to-market and default risk have significant influence on equity returns and default risk is a systematic risk. Default risk is also more powerful in explaining returns when the compound option model is adopted for estimating default risks.     

Institutional investors,intangible information,and the book-to-market effect

This paper establishes a robust link between the trading behavior of institutions and the book-to-market effect. Building on work by Daniel and Titman (2006), who argue that the book-to-market effect is driven by the reversal of intangible returns, I find that institutions tend to buy (sell) shares in response to positive (negative) intangible information and that the reversal of the intangible return is most pronounced among stocks for which a large proportion of active institutions trade in the direction of intangible information. Furthermore, the book-to-market effect is large and significant in stocks with intense past institutional trading but nonexistent in stocks with moderate institutional trading. This influence of institutional trading on the book-to-market effect is distinct from that of firm size. These results are consistent with the view that the tendency of institutions to trade in the direction of intangible information exacerbates price overreaction, thereby contributing to the value premium.     

Book-to-market and size effects: compensations for risks or outcomes of market inefficiencies?

We employ the optimal orthogonal portfolio approach to investigate if the size and book-to-market effects in US data are related to risk factors beside the market risk. This method enables us to estimate the upper limit of the risk premium, due to observed as well as all possible unobserved factors, which can be derived from a linear asset pricing model. As a corollary, it is possible to divide the observed average asset return into three parts: one explained by the market factor, one due to the unobserved factors, and finally the non-risk-based (NRB) component. Our empirical results confirm the existence of latent risk factors, which cannot be captured by the market index. In particular, the size effect is related to some other background risk factors than the market portfolio, but a large part of observed book-to-market effect has a NRB explanation.     

Illiquidity Premium in the MILA

This article analyzes the illiquidity premium in the MILA. Using seven proxies for illiquidity, we find a positive and significant illiquidity premium for our sample. A microstructure bias-free portfolio weighting based on past returns is critical in our finding of an illiquidity premium, which is robust to several methodological changes in our portfolio simulations. We also document that the premium is present only in small and high book-to-market stocks. Nonetheless, when we control for size and distress effects, the difference and significance in risk-adjusted returns between portfolios of high and low illiquidity stocks remains.