Stock liquidity premium with stochastic price impact and exogenous trading strategy

This paper provides a model which helps explain the variability of stock liquidity premium. Liquidity is modelled as a time-varying price impact and includes both permanent as well as temporary price impacts. Liquidity premium is defined as an additional expected return that stock should yield to compensate an investor for the potential loss of wealth utility caused by price impact costs. The numerical results presented show that liquidity premium varies with expected net stock return, return volatility and, to a lesser extent, with returns on risk-free bonds. Liquidity premium is a growing and convex function of liquidity costs, and temporary price impact has a more severe effect on liquidity premium than the permanent one.     

Expected Returns and Idiosyncratic Risk: Industry-Level Evidence from Russia

We explore a relation between expected returns and idiosyncratic risk in Russia. Investors in the Russian stock market cannot fully diversify their portfolios due to transaction costs, information gathering and processing costs, and shortcomings in investor protection. This implies that investors demand a premium for idiosyncratic risk. We estimate the price of idiosyncratic risk using MIDAS regressions and a cross section of Russian industry portfolios. We find that idiosyncratic risk is economically significant and commands a negative (positive) premium, on average, of 10.0% (8.0) per year before (after) the global financial crisis in 2008. The results remain unaffected after controlling for global pricing factors and return reversal.     

Extreme downside risk and expected stock returns

We propose a measure for extreme downside risk (EDR) to investigate whether bearing such a risk is rewarded by higher expected stock returns. By constructing an EDR proxy with the left tail index in the classical generalized extreme value distribution, we document a significantly positive EDR premium in cross-section of stock returns even after controlling for market, size, value, momentum, and liquidity effects. The EDR premium is more prominent among glamor stocks and when high market returns are expected. High-EDR stocks are generally characterized by high idiosyncratic risk, large downside beta, lower coskewness and cokurtosis, and high bankruptcy risk. The EDR premium persists after these characteristics are controlled for. Although Value at Risk (VaR) plays a significant role in explaining the EDR premium, it cannot completely subsume the EDR effect.     

A tale of two prices: Liquidity and asset prices in multiple markets

This paper investigates the liquidity effect in asset pricing by studying the liquidity–premium relationship of an American depositary receipt (ADR) and its underlying share. Using the [Amihud, Yakov, 2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31–56] measure, the turnover ratio and trading infrequency as proxies for liquidity, we show that a higher ADR premium is associated with higher ADR liquidity and lower home share liquidity, in terms of changes in these variables. We find that the liquidity effects remain strong after we control for firm size and a number of country characteristics, such as the expected change in the foreign exchange rate, the stock market performance, as well as several variables measuring the openness and transparency of the home market.     

How is illiquidity priced in the Chinese stock market?

This study investigates the liquidity premium in the Chinese stock market. We found that the expected stock returns increase monotonically with the quintile sort on characteristic liquidity with descending patterns. The characteristic liquidity premium ranges from 0.82% to 1.28% per month, which is much higher than that of their US counterparts. Moreover, our multivariate decomposition approach highlights that characteristic illiquidity premiums can be explained mainly by size, idiosyncratic volatility and momentum. The net systematic liquidity premium reaches 0.84% per month, driven mainly by commonality beta. The finding shows that a liquidity-based strategy forecasts cross-section and time-series expected returns.     

The Conditional Beta and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns

We examine the cross-sectional relation between conditional betas and expected stock returns for a sample period of July 1963 to December 2004. Our portfolio-level analyses and the firm-level cross-sectional regressions indicate a positive, significant relation between conditional betas and the cross-section of expected returns. The average return difference between high- and low-beta portfolios ranges between 0.89% and 1.01% per month, depending on the time-varying specification of conditional beta. After controlling for size, book-to-market, liquidity, and momentum, the positive relation between market beta and expected returns remains economically and statistically significant.     

Asset liquidity and stock returns

We document the significant predictive power of firms' asset liquidity in the cross section of subsequent stock returns. The annual return spread between portfolios featuring the highest and lowest levels of asset liquidity is significantly positive. Our proposed measure of asset liquidity outperforms those measures developed by Gopalan et al. (2012) in predicting returns. The asset liquidity anomaly also provides significantly positive alphas when controlling for the asset pricing factors in the Fama and French (1993) three-factor model and the Carhart (1997) four-factor model. Asset liquidity exhibits strong return forecasting power even after controlling for acknowledged cross-sectional determinants of return. The positive relation between asset liquidity and future returns tends to be stronger for firms with greater asset productivity, higher quality cash flow and lower capital investment.     

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.     

Accrual mispricing,value-at-risk,and expected stock returns

We investigate the extent to which a parsimonious measure of maximum likely loss that captures the tail risk of returns—known as value-at-risk (VaR)—explains the relationship between accruals and the cross-sectional dispersion of expected stock returns. We construct portfolios based on Sloan’s (Account Rev 71(3):289–315, 1996) total accruals (TA) measure and individual asset-level VaR, which reflects the dynamic behavior of the asset distribution. We document that VaR is in congruence with portfolio-level accruals and that there is a significant positive relationship between VaR and the cross-section of portfolio returns. Allowing a double-sort involving VaR and TA further suggests that the spread between low- and high-TA portfolios is significantly attenuated after controlling for VaR. We also conduct a firm-level cross-sectional regression analysis and demonstrate that the TA- and VaR-based characteristics—but not the factor-mimicking portfolios—are compensated with higher expected returns, and that VaR neither subsumes nor is subsumed by TA. Finally, our cross-sectional decomposition analysis suggests that the firm-level VaR captures at least 7% of the accrual premium even in the presence of size and book-to-market. These findings lend support for the mispricing explanation of the accrual anomaly.

     

Does liquidity drive stock market returns? The role of investor risk aversion

In this paper, we explore the relations between liquidity, stock returns, and investor risk aversion as captured by the variance risk premium (VRP). This is motivated by theoretical and empirical evidence in the literature which suggests that investor risk aversion negatively correlates with asset liquidity, and ample empirical evidence documenting liquidity risk premium. We use monthly US data from January 1999 to December 2018 and show that innovations in the VRP Granger-cause stock returns, which in turn drive liquidity. Our findings are consistent with predictions of prior theories and highlight the predictability of the VRP. They also contribute to the on-going debate on the causal relation between stock returns and liquidity. Finally, we explore the channels through which the VRP impacts liquidity and find that the VRP influences market and momentum factors, and that movements in these factors lead to changes in liquidity.

     

FILTER RULE TESTS OF THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF SERIAL DEPENDENCIES IN DAILY STOCK RETURNS

In this paper we examine the ability of filter rules to predict variation in expected daily returns for a sample of 120 Dow Jones and S&P 100 stocks from 1963 through 1989. Equally weighted portfolios of filter-rule-traded stocks consistently outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio of the same stocks before accounting for transaction costs. The difference in returns between filter rule and buy-and-hold portfolios is eliminated by one-way transaction costs of 12 basis points. The economic significance of daily stock return autocorrelations is estimated. A marginal 1 percent increase in a first-order autocorrelation increases filter rule returns by an estimated 3.84 percent.     

Market timing for the individual investor: Using the predictability of long-horizon stock returns to enhance portfolio performance

Recent research indicates that dividend yield and earnings-price ratio can partially predict long-horizon stock returns. We examine whether individual investors can successfully construct timing portfolios based on either of these variables or a measure of the expected market risk premium. The out-of-sample tests in this study require that investors rely only on information that was available at the time of the market-timing decision. Timing portfolios based on the market risk premium show the strongest ability to time the market. We present an economic rationale for the results that is consistent with efficient markets.     

市场摩擦对特质风险溢价的影响效应——基于A股主板市场的实证分析

与国外发达市场相比,我国A股主板市场的市场摩擦因素对市场微观结构和资产定价的影响更大。在防范和化解系统性风险的过程中,进一步分析市场摩擦如何作用于特质风险定价效应的问题具有重要的理论和现实意义。本文通过采用多维市场摩擦指标来代理信息不对称、交易成本、买卖限制、卖空限制、风险对冲和外部冲击,检验中国股市特质风险和预期收益率的关系,并判断出市场摩擦因素间的差异性影响机制。回归发现,市场摩擦和特质风险因子(特质波动率和特质偏度)都具有定价效应。各维度市场摩擦因素降低了股票流动性,进而增强了特质波动率的负向定价效应,部分解释了“特质波动率之谜”,但市场摩擦对特质偏度因子溢价的影响较为微弱。同时,基于特质波动率和特质偏度因子的投资策略能够产生超越CAPM、三因子和五因子模型的绝对收益,并印证了市场摩擦对特质风险因子绝对收益的影响作用。     

Does Idiosyncratic Risk Really Matter?

Goyal and Santa‐Clara (2003) find a significantly positive relation between the equal‐weighted average stock volatility and the value‐weighted portfolio returns on the NYSE/AMEX/Nasdaq stocks for the period of 1963:08 to 1999:12. We show that this result is driven by small stocks traded on the Nasdaq, and is in part due to a liquidity premium. In addition, their result does not hold for the extended sample of 1963:08 to 2001:12 and for the NYSE/AMEX and NYSE stocks. More importantly, we find no evidence of a significant link between the value‐weighted portfolio returns and the median and value‐weighted average stock volatility.     

Hedge fund liquidity and performance: Evidence from the financial crisis

We investigate how share restrictions affect hedge fund performance in crisis and non-crisis periods. Consistent with prior research, we find that in the pre-crisis period more illiquid funds generate a share illiquidity premium compensating investors for limited liquidity. In the crisis period, this share illiquidity premium turns into an illiquidity discount. Hedge funds with more stringent share restrictions invest more heavily in illiquid assets. While share restrictions enable funds to manage illiquid assets effectively in the pre-crisis period, they seem insufficient to ensure effective management of illiquid portfolios in the crisis. In a crisis period, funds holding illiquid portfolios experience lower returns and alphas, also when share restrictions are controlled for. Funds with an asset–liability mismatch perform particularly poorly and experience the strongest outflows. Share restrictions are also a proxy for incentives as investors cannot immediately withdraw their money after poor performance. We show that higher incentive fees can offset the share illiquidity discount in the crisis period.     

The relation between stock returns and short-term interest rates

This study examines the relation between the expected returns on common stocks and short-term interest rates. Using a two-factor model of stock returns, we show that the expected returns on common stocks are systematically related to the market risk and the interest-rate risk, which are estimated as the sensitivity of common-stock excess returns to the excess return on the equally weighted market index and to the federal fund premium, respectively. We find that the interest-rate risk for small firms is a significant source of investors' portfolio risk, but is not properly reflected in the single-factor market risk. We also find that the interest-rate risk for large firms is “negative” in the sense that the market risk estimated from the single-factor model overstates the true risk of large firms. An application of the Fama-MacBeth methodology indicates that the interest-rate risk premium as well as the market's risk premium are significant, implying that both the market risk and the interest-rate risk are priced. We show that the interest-rate risk premium explains a significant portion of the difference in expected returns between the top quintile and the bottom quintile of the NYSE and AMEX firms. We also show that the turn-of-the-year seasonal is observed for the interest-rate risk premium; however, the risk premium for the rest of the year is still significant, although small in mangitude.     

Foreign exchange risk and the cross-section of stock returns

We examine the relation between the cross-section of US stock returns and foreign exchange rates during the period from 1973 to 2002. We find that stocks most sensitive to foreign exchange risk (in absolute value) have lower returns than others. This implies a non-linear, negative premium for foreign exchange risk. Sensitivity to foreign exchange generates a cross-sectional spread in stock returns unexplained by existing asset-pricing models. Consequently, we form a zero-investment factor related to foreign exchange-sensitivity and show that it can reduce mean pricing errors for exchange-sensitive portfolios. One possible explanation for our findings includes Johnson's [2004. Forecast dispersion and the cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Finance, 59, 1957–1978] option-theoretic model in which expected returns are decreasing in idiosyncratic cashflow volatility.     

Liquidity and expected returns—Evidence from 1926–2008

This paper re-examines the liquidity effect on stock expected returns in the NYSE over the period 1926–2008, the pre-1963 period, for which there is a lack of research, and the post-1963 period. The results from the entire sample of 1926–2008 show that expected returns increase with the stock level illiquidity. However, illiquidity level has explanatory power in the cross-sectional variation of stock expected returns only over the post-1963 period, and is, both economically and statistically, insignificant for the whole sample and the pre-1963 period. These findings are robust after taking into account various characteristics such as size and risk controls. On the other hand, evidence from the entire sample and the pre-1963 sample suggests that the systematic liquidity risk plays a significant role in the cross-sectional variation of stock expected returns. The different result for the pre- and post-1963 is explained by the portfolio shifts occurred during the economic downturns.     

When noise trading fades,volatility rises

We hypothesize and test an inverse relation between liquidity and price volatility derived from microstructure theory. Two important facets of liquidity trading are examined: volume and noisiness. As represented by the expected turnover rate (volume) and realized average commission cost per share (noisiness) of NYSE equity trading, both facets are found negatively associated with the ex post and ex ante return volatilities of the NYSE stock portfolios and the NYSE composite index futures. Furthermore, the inverse association between noisiness and volatility is amplified in times of market crisis. The negative noisiness–volatility relation is also supported by our analysis on the effects of trade size on price volatility. The overall results demonstrate that volatility increases as noise trading declines.     

Liquidity risk and stock returns around the world

The recent global financial crisis demonstrates that market liquidity is a prominent systematic risk globally. We find that local liquidity risk, in addition to the local market, value and size factors, demands a systematic premium across stocks in 11 developed markets. This local pricing premium is smaller in countries where the country-level corporate boards are more effective and where there are less insider trading activities. We also discover that global liquidity risk is a significant pricing factor across all developed country market portfolios after controlling for global market, value, and size factors. The contribution of this risk to the return on a country market portfolio is economically and statistically significant within and across regions.