Risk and the cross section of stock returns

This paper mathematically transforms unobservable rational expectation equilibrium model parameters (information precision and supply uncertainty) into a single variable that is correlated with expected returns and that can be estimated with recently observed data. Our variable can be used to explain the cross section of returns in theoretical, numerical, and empirical analyses. Using Center for Research in Security Prices data, we show that a −1σ$-1\sigma$ to +1σ$+1\sigma$ change in our variable is associated with a 0.31% difference in average returns the following month (equaling 3.78% per annum). The results are statistically significant at the 1% level. Our results remain economically and statistically significant after controlling for stocks' market capitalizations, book-to-market ratios, liquidities, and the probabilities of information-based trading.     

Idiosyncratic Risk and REIT Returns

The volatility of a stock returns can be decomposed into market and firm-specific volatility, with the former commonly known as systematic risk and the later as idiosyncratic risk. This study examines the relevance of idiosyncratic risk in explaining the monthly cross-sectional returns of REIT stocks. Contrary to the CAPM theory, a significant positive relationship is found between idiosyncratic volatility and the cross-sectional returns. This suggests that firm-specific risk matters in REIT pricing. The regression results further show that once idiosyncratic risk is controlled for in the asset-pricing model, the size and book-to-market equity ratio factors ceased to be significant. The explanatory power of the momentum effect remains robust in the presence of idiosyncratic risk.

The Cross-Section of Volatility and Expected Returns

We examine the pricing of aggregate volatility risk in the cross‐section of stock returns. Consistent with theory, we find that stocks with high sensitivities to innovations in aggregate volatility have low average returns. Stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility relative to the Fama and French (1993, Journal of Financial Economics 25, 2349) model have abysmally low average returns. This phenomenon cannot be explained by exposure to aggregate volatility risk. Size, book‐to‐market, momentum, and liquidity effects cannot account for either the low average returns earned by stocks with high exposure to systematic volatility risk or for the low average returns of stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility.     

The acquisitiveness of youth: CEO age and acquisition behavior

I demonstrate that acquisitions are accompanied by large, permanent increases in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation, which create strong financial incentives for CEOs to pursue acquisitions earlier in their career. Accordingly, I document that a firm's acquisition propensity is decreasing in the age of its CEO: a firm with a CEO who is 20 years older is ∼30%$\sim 30\%$ less likely to announce an acquisition. This negative effect of CEO age on acquisitions is strongest among firms where CEOs likely anticipate or can influence high post-acquisition compensation, and is absent for other investment decisions that are not rewarded with permanent compensation gains. The age effect cannot be explained by the selection of young CEOs by acquisition-prone firms, nor by a story of declining overconfidence with age. This paper underscores the relevance of CEO personal characteristics and CEO-level variation in agency problems for corporate decisions.     

Idiosyncratic Volatility and the Expected Stock Returns for Exploring the Relationship with Panel Threshold Regression

This paper utilizes panel threshold regression to study the impact of idiosyncratic risk of stock returns on the Taiwan Security Market over the period from 2000 to 2011, during which there has been a noticeable increase idiosyncratic volatility. An innovative panel threshold regression model is applied to test the panel threshold effect of idiosyncratic risk on expected stock returns. The results support Merton’s (J Financ 42:579–590, 1987) investor recognition hypothesis and confirm that a threshold effect does exist. This study shows that it is possible to identify the definitive level beyond which a further increase in idiosyncratic volatility does not improve proportional expected stock returns. Some important policy implications arise from these findings. The conditional distribution of expected stock returns is allowed to vary across low volatility states. The evidence suggests that in Taiwan, idiosyncratic risk is a predictor of future market returns based upon threshold value during the lower variance state. In contrast, when the threshold value is exceeded, the relation between idiosyncratic risk and expected stock returns is not statistically significant.     

Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction

Does CEO overconfidence help to explain merger decisions? Overconfident CEOs over-estimate their ability to generate returns. As a result, they overpay for target companies and undertake value-destroying mergers. The effects are strongest if they have access to internal financing. We test these predictions using two proxies for overconfidence: CEOs’ personal over-investment in their company and their press portrayal. We find that the odds of making an acquisition are 65% higher if the CEO is classified as overconfident. The effect is largest if the merger is diversifying and does not require external financing. The market reaction at merger announcement (-90$-90$ basis points) is significantly more negative than for non-overconfident CEOs (-12$-12$ basis points). We consider alternative interpretations including inside information, signaling, and risk tolerance.     

Have European Stocks become More Volatile? An Empirical Investigation of Idiosyncratic and Market Risk in the Euro Area

We examine the dynamics of idiosyncratic risk, market risk and return correlations in European equity markets using weekly observations from 3515 stocks listed in the 12 euro area stock markets over the period 1974–2004. Similarly to Campbell et al. (2001) , we find a rise in idiosyncratic volatility, implying that it now takes more stocks to diversify away idiosyncratic risk. Contrary to the US, however, market risk is trended upwards in Europe and correlations are not trended downwards. Both the volatility and correlation measures are pro‐cyclical, and they rise during times of low market returns. Market and average idiosyncratic volatility jointly predict market wide returns, and the latter impact upon both market and idiosyncratic volatility. This has asset pricing and risk management implications.     

An Alternative Testable Form of the Consumption CAPM

This paper develops a consumption-oriented model of asset prices in a multigood economy that is, in principle, testable even when aggregate consumption of goods and their market prices are only partially observable. Previous studies show that, when there are m consumption goods, equilibrium expected excess returns on securities are functions of their covariances with $m+1$ variables—aggregate consumption expenditure and market prices of consumption goods. Without making any further assumptions, the present model shows that a similar equilibrium relationship can be expressed in terms of covariances of asset returns with the following $m+1$ variables: market prices of k consumption goods and aggregate consumption of $m+1?k$ goods. Because the author's result provides researchers with some flexibility in choosing the set of $m+1$ variables that measure riskiness of securities, it should lead to more powerful tests of the model.     

Insider trading and firm-specific return volatility

Roll (J Financ 43:541–566, 1988) argues that firm-specific stock return volatility may result either from informed trading or from noise trading that is unrelated to information. In this paper we provide evidence that insider purchases are inversely related to the idiosyncratic volatility of stocks. We also find that stock idiosyncratic volatilities are generally inversely related to future 6- and 12-month returns. Our results are primarily driven by the timing of insider sales rather than insider purchases. The results are consistent with an information-based explanation of firm-specific return volatility.     

The return impact of realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility

We show that the negative relation between realized idiosyncratic volatility, measured over the prior month, and returns is robust in non-January months. Controlling for realized idiosyncratic volatility, we show that the relation between returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility is positive and robust. Realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility are separate and important effects describing the cross-section of returns. We find the negative return on a zero-investment portfolio that is long high realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks and short low realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks is dependent on aggregate investor sentiment. In cross-sectional tests, we find the negative relation is weaker for stocks with a large analyst following and stronger for stocks with high dispersion of analyst forecasts. The positive relation between expected idiosyncratic volatility and returns is not due to mispricing.     

Reassessing False Discoveries in Mutual Fund Performance: Skill,Luck, or Lack of Power?

Barras, Scaillet, and Wermers propose the false discovery rate (FDR) to separate skill (alpha) from luck in fund performance. Using simulations with parameters informed by the data, we find that this methodology is conservative and underestimates the proportion of nonzero‐alpha funds. For example, 65% of funds with economically large alphas of $\pm 2\%$ are misclassified as zero alpha. This bias arises from the low signal‐to‐noise ratio in fund returns and the resulting low statistical power. Our results question FDR's applicability in performance evaluation and other domains with low power, and can materially change the conclusion that most funds have zero alpha.     

Are idiosyncratic volatility and MAX priced in the Canadian market?

The negative relationship between realized idiosyncratic volatility (RIvol) and future returns uncovered by Ang et al. (2006) for the U.S. market has been attributed to return reversals. For the Canadian market where return reversals are considerably less important, we find that RIvol is positively related to future returns, even after controlling for risk loadings, illiquidity and reversals. Unlike the findings of Bali et al. (2001) for the U.S. market, we find that the relationship between extreme positive returns (MAX) and future returns for the Canadian market is positive and that idiosyncratic volatility continues to be consistently positively related to future returns after controlling for MAX. We find evidence that suggests that reversals for stocks with extreme daily returns are confined to (typically small) stocks with low institutional holdings.     

Volatilities and Momentum Returns in Real Estate Investment Trusts

We examine the relation of time-varying idiosyncratic risk and momentum returns in REITs using a GARCH-in-mean model and incorporate liquidity risk in the asset pricing model. This is important because illiquidity may be more severe for REITs due to the nature of their underlying assets. We find that momentum returns display asymmetric volatility, i.e., momentum returns are higher when volatility is higher. Additionally, we find evidence that REITs with lowest past returns (losers) have higher idiosyncratic risks than those with highest past returns (winners) and that investors require a lower risk premium for holding losers’ idiosyncratic risks. Therefore, although losers have higher levels of idiosyncratic risks, their low risk premia cause low returns, which contribute to momentum. Lastly, we find a positive relation between REITs’ momentum return and turnover.     

A Theoretical Analysis of Real Estate Returns

In this paper, we consider two hypotheses for the recent performance of real estate returns. The first is the random event argument that real estate is positively correlated with unanticipated inflation but that structural change in expected returns due to a change in the perceived sensitivity of returns to unanticipated inflation has not taken place. The second is the hedge demand argument that formulates the structural shift hypothesis. The paucity of real estate and other expectations data as well as the general identification problem make it extremely difficult to distinguish between these hypothesis. Our tests consist of estimates of inflation betas for various asset categories overtime as well as estimates of the hedge vector, $S^{-1}C$. Although some support for the hedge argument is found, the results are not strong enough to reject the random event argument and conclude that a decline in the required return on real estate due to a relative increase in inflation beta drove returns during the 1970's.     

EXPECTED VOLATILITY,UNEXPECTED VOLATILITY,AND THE CROSS‐SECTION OF STOCK RETURNS

The existing literature finds conflicting results on the cross‐sectional relation between expected returns and idiosyncratic volatility. We contend that at the firm level, the sample correlation between unexpected returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility can cloud the true relation between the expected return and expected idiosyncratic volatility. We show strong evidence that unexpected idiosyncratic volatility is positively related to unexpected returns. Using unexpected idiosyncratic volatility to control for unexpected returns, we find expected idiosyncratic volatility to be significantly and positively related to expected returns. This result holds after controlling for various firm characteristics, and it is robust across different sample periods.     

International tests of a five-factor asset pricing model

Average stock returns for North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific increase with the book-to-market ratio (B/M) and profitability and are negatively related to investment. For Japan, the relation between average returns and B/M is strong, but average returns show little relation to profitability or investment. A five-factor model that adds profitability and investment factors to the three-factor model of Fama and French (1993) largely absorbs the patterns in average returns. As in Fama and French, 2015, Fama and French, 2016, the model's prime problem is failure to capture fully the low average returns of small stocks whose returns behave like those of low profitability firms that invest aggressively.     

Idiosyncratic volatility and cross‐sectional stock returns in Southeast Asian stock markets

We examine the role of idiosyncratic risk in five ASEAN markets of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Our research was motivated by the findings of Ang et al. (2006, 2009) of a ‘puzzling’ negative relation between idiosyncratic volatility and 1‐month ahead stock returns in developed markets and the suggestion of the ubiquity of these results in other markets. In contrast, we find no evidence of an idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in these Asian stock markets; instead, we document a positive relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and returns in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia and no relationship in the Philippines. The idiosyncratic volatility trading strategy could result in significant trading profits in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and to some extent in Indonesia. Our study underscores the fact that generalizing empirical results obtained in developed stock markets to new and emerging markets could potentially be misleading.