Cross‐sectional Tests of Conditional Asset Pricing Models: Evidence from the German Stock Market

We study the performance of conditional asset pricing models and multifactor models in explaining the German cross‐section of stock returns. We focus on several variables, which (according to previous research) are associated with market expectations on future market excess returns or business cycle conditions. Our results suggest that the empirical performance of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be improved when allowing for time‐varying parameters of the stochastic discount factor. A conditional CAPM using the term spread explains the returns on our size and book‐to‐market sorted portfolios about as well as the Fama‐French three‐factor model and performs best in terms of the Hansen‐Jagannathan distance. Structural break tests do not necessarily indicate parameter instability of conditional model specifications. Another major finding of the paper is that the Fama‐French model – despite its generally good cross‐sectional performance – is subject to model instability. Unconditional models, however, do a better job than conditional ones at capturing time‐series predictability of the test portfolio returns.     

It takes a model to beat a model: Volatility bounds

Models like the CAPM and Fama–French three-factor models are commonly used as benchmarks for calculating cost of capital and evaluating portfolio performance, despite the empirical evidence to reject them. For many practical purposes, “it takes a model to beat a model.” In this paper we derive restrictions on models that could “beat” a bench-mark model but might still be misspecified. In these “takes-a-model-to-beat-a-model” (TMBM) bounds, model A beats model B if model A's quadratic form of pricing errors is smaller. The bounds generalize the Hansen–Jagannathan bound and distance measure. We use the TMBM bounds to evaluate various linear factor models and consumption-based models. The failure of the power utility model is much less extreme when it is compared with the CAPM and Fama–French model. For reasonable utility curvature, the Ferson–Constantinides model and Epstein–Zin model perform best among the consumption-based models, beating the model of Campbell and Cochrane, in which model the value of the persistence parameter that matches the time-series properties of aggregate stock market returns seems too low for cross-sectional asset pricing.     

Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?

In a capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework, Ferguson and Shockley [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] propose two factors constructed on relative leverage and relative distress, and show that the two factors subsume Fama and French's [1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] factors constructed on size and book-to-market (BM) in explaining the cross-sectional average returns of the 25 size-BM portfolios. Based on tests on individual securities, we find that all factors fail to fully explain the common asset-pricing anomalies. In the spirit of Merton's [1973. An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41, 867–887] intertemporal CAPM, we propose an augmented five-factor model, which incorporates Ferguson and Shockley's [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] factors into the Fama–French three-factor model. The empirical results show that a simple conditional version of the augmented model is able to explain most well-known asset-pricing anomalies.     

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.     

Asset Pricing with Conditioning Information: A New Test

This paper presents a new test of conditional versions of the Sharpe-Lintner CAPM, the Jagannathan and Wang (1996) extension of the CAPM, and the Fama and French (1993) three-factor model. The test is based on a general nonparametric methodology that avoids functional form misspecification of betas, risk premia, and the stochastic discount factor. Our results provide a novel view of empirical performance of these models. In particular, we find that a nonparametric version of the Fama and French model performs well, even when challenged by momentum portfolios.     

Macroeconomic risk and the cross-section of stock returns

We develop a conditional version of the consumption capital asset pricing model (CCAPM) using the conditioning variable from the cointegrating relation among macroeconomic variables (dividend yield, term spread, default spread, and short-term interest rate). Our conditioning variable has a strong power to predict market excess returns in the presence of competing predictive variables. In addition, our conditional CCAPM performs approximately as well as Fama and French’s (1993) three-factor model in explaining the cross-section of the Fama and French 25 size and book-to-market sorted portfolios. Our specification shows that value stocks are riskier than growth stocks in bad times, supporting the risk-based story.     

Asset pricing and energy consumption risk

This paper proposes energy consumption in the US as a new measure for the consumption capital asset pricing model. We find that (i) industrial energy growth produces reasonable values for the relative risk aversion coefficient and the implied risk-free rate; (ii) compared to alternative consumption measures, industrial energy performs well in explaining the cross-sectional variation in stock returns with the lowest implied risk aversion and pricing errors; (iii) the industrial energy consumption risk model performs equally well as the Fama–French three-factor model in the cross-sectional asset pricing tests; and (iv) total energy consumption risk is priced in the presence of the Fama–French factor risks.     

Research and Development Activity and Expected Returns in the United Kingdom

Fama and French (1992) show that size and book-to-price dominate CAPM betaand other variables such as the price-earnings ratio and dividend yield in explainingthe cross-section of US stock returns. Comparable evidence for the UK points to abook-to-price effect, but not a size effect (Chan and Chui, 1996; Strong and Xu, 1997).In this paper, our first contribution is to show that a measure of research and development (RD) helps explain cross-sectional variation in UK stock returns. Our cross-sectional results on the association between stock returns and RD are consistent with recent US evidence reported by Lev and Sougiannis (1996, 1999) and Chan, Lakonishok and Sougiannis (2001). Fama and French (1993, 1995, 1996) also show that a three-factor model captures a high proportion of the time series variation in portfolio returns, again for the US. Our second contribution is to show, for the UK, that a modification to the three-factor model to take account of RD activity can significantly enhance the explanatory power of the three-factor model. We show that, as a practical matter, estimated risk premia based on the modified three-factor model can differ considerably from risk premia estimated using the CAPM or the three-factor model. In particular, risk premia for industries in whichfew firms undertake RD activities tend to be over-estimated.     

Do zero-cost portfolios have the ability to predict economic growth? Evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan

In this paper we investigate the relationship between growth in future Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Industrial Production (IDP) and the performance of SMB (small stocks minus big stocks) and HML (High book-to-market stocks minus low book-to-market stocks) portfolios for equities listed in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.We find evidence to suggest that: (a) the excess market return is positively related to future GDP or IDP growth in South Korea and Taiwan; (b) contrary to most European markets, Australia, Japan and the US, future economic growth is in general significantly negatively related to SMB in Hong Kong and South Korea; and, (c) a negative relationship between future economic growth and HML for Hong Kong. Our results cast doubt if SMB and HML portfolios are positive risk factors in the Fama and French (Fama, E. F., and French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3-56) three-factor asset pricing model for Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.     

Book Assets,Real Estate,and Returns on Common Stock

Since real estate is common to most firms, this study examines whether there is a real estate factor in common stock returns that is not completely captured by existing asset pricing models. The three-factor model of Fama and French (1993), hereafter FF, is extended to incorporate a unique real estate factor. Using his extended-FF model, we examine the returns on 53 industry portfolios of common stocks over the 1972 through 1995 time period. The results indicate that a significant 19 percent of the industries are systematically related to the real estate factor. Most interestingly, we show that the loading of the real estate factor in common stock return is related to the loading of the book-to-market equity factor in these returns. We also construct decile portfolios of common stocks based on historical sensitivities of common stock returns to the real estate factor. The coefficients on the real estate factor vary systematically across the decile portfolios. The results of our analysis suggest that portfolio managers should manage their exposure to real estate.     

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Liquidity,Momentum, Size and Book‐to‐Market Value Factors in Equity Pricing on a Heterogeneous Sample: Evidence from Asia

This paper compares the size and book‐to‐market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman ( 1993 ) with two Liu ( 2006 ) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra‐market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.     

SMB — Arousal,disproportionate reactions and the size-premium

This paper examines SMB (small minus big), the mimicking portfolio in Fama and French's [Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] three-factor asset pricing model. We do not examine whether SMB is a factor in explaining the cross-section of returns. This paper's focus is why S is greater than B. After controlling for market-pervasive effects, we argue that the small-firm premium is driven by both investors' emotional arousal (proxied by the turnover ratio) and their disproportionate reactions to arousing stimuli.     

Evaluating a non-linear asset pricing model on international data

The paper analyses the ability of a non-linear asset pricing model suggested by Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403] to explain the returns on international value and growth portfolios. For comparison we use competing pricing models such as the ICAPM, the exchange rate risk augmented ICAPM and the international two-factor model proposed by Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K. R., 1998. Value versus growth: The international evidence. Journal of Finance 53, 1975-1999]. All models are evaluated both unconditionally and conditionally. The models are evaluated by applying the Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure, and we also employ several alternative measures to ensure a robust comparison of the models. We find support for the model of Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403]. Evaluated conditionally, this model successfully passes all the different diagnostic tests performed in the analysis.     

Conditional beta pricing models: A nonparametric approach

We propose a two-stage procedure to estimate conditional beta pricing models that allows for flexibility in the dynamics of asset betas and market prices of risk (MPR). First, conditional betas are estimated nonparametrically for each asset and period using the time-series of previous data. Then, time-varying MPR are estimated from the cross-section of returns and betas. We prove the consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimators. We also perform Monte Carlo simulations for the conditional version of the three-factor model of Fama and French (1993) and show that nonparametrically estimated betas outperform rolling betas under different specifications of beta dynamics. Using return data on the 25 size and book-to-market sorted portfolios, we find that the nonparametric procedure produces a better fit of the three-factor model to the data, less biased estimates of MPR and lower pricing errors than the Fama–MacBeth procedure with betas estimated under several alternative parametric specifications.     

Common risk factors in bank stocks

This paper provides evidence on the risk factors that are priced in bank equities. Alternative empirical models with precedent in the nonfinancial asset pricing literature are tested, including the single-factor CAPM, three-factor Fama–French model, and ICAPM. Our empirical results indicate that an unconditional two-factor ICAPM model that includes the stock market excess return and shocks to the slope of the yield curve is useful in explaining the cross-section of bank stock returns. However, we find no evidence that firm specific factors such as size and book-to-market ratios are priced in bank stock returns. These results have a number of important implications for the estimation of the banks’ cost of capital as well as regulatory initiatives to utilize market discipline to evaluate bank risk under Basel II.     

An examination of alternative CAPM-based models in UK stock returns

We evaluate the performance of unconditional and conditional versions of seven stochastic discount factor models in UK stock returns between January 1975 and December 2001. We find that the conditional four-moment capital asset pricing model (CAPM) has the best performance among the models we consider in terms of the lowest [Hansen, L.P., Jagannathan, R., 1997. Assessing specification errors in stochastic discount factor models. Journal of Finance 52, 591–607] distance measure and explaining the time-series predictability of industry portfolio excess returns. Conditional models also do a better job than unconditional models. However we find that the superior performance of the conditional four-moment CAPM, and conditional models in general, arises in part due to overfitting the data.     

Financial Sector Risk and the Stock Returns: Evidence from Tokyo Stock Exchange Firms

We investigate whether the activity of financial firms creates value and/or risk to the economy within the asset pricing framework. We use stock return data from nonfinancial firms listed in the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The value-weighted index that is solely composed of nonfinancial firms is augmented with the index of the firms from the financial sector, and we estimate multivariate asset pricing model with these two indices. We note that our procedure can simultaneously take into account the cross-holding phenomena among Japanese firms, especially between the financial sector and the nonfinancial sector. Our augmented index model performs well both with cross-sectional Fama and MacBeth regression test and GMM test. Our two index model with additional Fama and French's HML factor can capture cross-sectional variations of the returns of sample portfolios better than the original Fama and French model can, when measured by Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure. We find that this additional new sector variable can be a substitute for Fama and French's size factor, but not related to the bond index return. This variable has similar factor characteristic as money supply growth or the term structure, but the latter variables contain more information than the former. Morever, our financial sector model helps explain the return and risk structure of Japanese firms during the so-called bubble period.     

Estimation of expected return: CAPM vs. Fama and French

Most practitioners favour a one-factor model (CAPM) when estimating expected return for an individual stock. For estimation of portfolio returns, academics recommend the Fama and French three-factor model. The main objective of this paper is to compare the performance of these two models for individual stocks. First, estimates for individual stock returns based on CAPM are obtained using different time frames, data frequencies, and indexes. It is found that 5 years of monthly data and an equal-weighted index, as opposed to the commonly recommended value-weighted index, provide the best estimate. However, performance of the model is very poor; it explains on average 3% of differences in returns. Then, estimates for individual stock returns are obtained based on the Fama and French model using 5 years of monthly data. This model, however, does not do much better; independent of the index used, it explains on average 5% of differences in returns. These results therefore bring into question the use of either model for estimation of individual expected stock returns.     

Technical indicators and cross-sectional expected returns

This study shows that 14 widely documented technical indicators explain cross-sectional stock returns. These indicators have lower estimation errors than the three-factor Fama–French and historical mean models. The long-short portfolios based on the cross-sectional technical signals generate substantial excess returns. These remain consistent after controlling for well-known cross-sectional return determinants, including momentum, size, book-to-market ratio, investment, and profitability. Our findings suggest that technical indicators play an important role in determining variation in cross-sectional returns.