The systematic pricing of market sentiment shock

ABSTRACT

We show that market sentiment shocks create demand shocks for risky assets and a systematic risk for assets. We measure a market sentiment shock as the unexpected portion of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index’s growth. This shock prices stock returns in arbitrage pricing theory framework at 1% after controlling for market, size, value, momentum, and liquidity risk factors. Its premium lowered the implied risk aversion by 97.9% to 11.46 between 1978 and 2009 in our sentiment consumption-based capital-asset-pricing model. Merton’s [1973. “An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Econometrica 41: 867–887]. intertemporal capital-asset-pricing model reconfirms our finding that this market sentiment shock is a systematic risk factor that provides investment opportunities.     

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.     

Idiosyncratic volatility and equity returns: UK evidence

The proposition that idiosyncratic volatility may matter in asset pricing is currently a topic of research and controversy. Using data from the UK market we examine the predictive ability of various measures of idiosyncratic risk and provide evidence which suggests that: (a) it is the idiosyncratic volatility of small capitalization stocks that matters for asset pricing and (b) that small stocks idiosyncratic volatility predicts the small capitalization premium component of market returns and is unrelated to either the market or the value premium. The predictive power of the aggregate idiosyncratic volatility of small stocks remains intact even after we control for the possible proxying effects of business cycle fluctuations and liquidity and is robust across time and different econometric specifications.     

The world price of liquidity risk

This paper empirically tests the liquidity-adjusted capital asset pricing model of Acharya and Pedersen (2005) on a global level. Consistent with the model, I find evidence that liquidity risks are priced independently of market risk in international financial markets. That is, a security’s required rate of return depends on the covariance of its own liquidity with aggregate local market liquidity, as well as the covariance of its own liquidity with local and global market returns. I also show that the US market is an important driving force of global liquidity risk. Furthermore, I find that the pricing of liquidity risk varies across countries according to geographic, economic, and political environments. The findings show that the systematic dimension of liquidity provides implications for international portfolio diversification.     

The high volume return premium: Cross-country evidence

We examine the high volume return premium across 41 different countries and find it to be a phenomenon found in both developed and emerging markets. The premium is not caused by systematic differences in risk or liquidity. Using Merton's (1987) investor recognition hypothesis as a guide, we find the magnitude of the premium is generally associated with country and firm characteristics hypothesized to affect returns subsequent to a change in a stock's visibility. We also characterize the time-series properties of the premium and consider economic trading strategies.     

Volatility risk and the value premium: Evidence from the French stock market

This paper documents that systematic volatility risk is an important factor that drives the value premium observed in the French stock market. Using returns on at-the-money straddles written on the CAC 40 index as a proxy for systematic volatility risk, I document significant differences between volatility factor loadings of value and growth stocks. Furthermore, when markets are classified into expected booms and recessions, volatility factor loadings are also time-varying. When expected market risk premium is above its average, i.e. during expected recessions, value stocks are seen riskier than their growth counterparts. This implies in bad times, investors shift their preferences away from value firms. Instead they use growth stocks as hedges against deteriorations in their wealth during those times. The findings are in line with the predictions of rational asset pricing theory and support a “flight-to-quality” explanation.     

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.     

Corporate bond liquidity and yield spreads: A review

Secondary market illiquidity is an important non-default factor affecting yield spreads. Yet, a review of the literature suggests the findings are mixed, both regarding the relative size of the default versus non-default components as well as the relative importance of liquidity premium for investment-grade and high-yield bonds. While in theory country and currency risk might affect international bonds' yield spreads, empirical findings show that international corporate bonds pricing and liquidity are generally affected by the same factors as the U.S. market. We identify several other areas of disagreement and challenges in the literature that warrant further research.     

A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model

Using a new measure of liquidity, this paper documents a significant liquidity premium robust to the CAPM and the Fama–French three-factor model and shows that liquidity is an important source of priced risk. A two-factor (market and liquidity) model well explains the cross-section of stock returns, describing the liquidity premium, subsuming documented anomalies associated with size, long-term contrarian investment, and fundamental (cashflow, earnings, and dividend) to price ratios. In particular, the two-factor model accounts for the book-to-market effect, which the Fama–French three-factor model fails to explain.     

LIQUIDITY AND ASSET PRICING UNDER THE THREE‐MOMENT CAPM PARADIGM

We examine whether the use of the three‐moment capital asset pricing model can account for liquidity risk. We also make a comparative analysis of a four‐factor model based on Fama–French and Pástor–Stambaugh factors versus a model based solely on stock characteristics. Our findings suggest that neither of the models captures the liquidity premium nor do stock characteristics serve as proxies for liquidity. We also find that sensitivities of stock return to fluctuations in market liquidity do not subsume the effect of characteristic liquidity. Furthermore, our empirical findings are robust to differences in market microstructure or trading protocols between NYSE/AMEX and NASDAQ.     

Liquidity,default, taxes,and yields on municipal bonds

We examine the effects of liquidity, default and personal taxes on the relative yields of Treasuries and municipals using a generalized model with liquidity risk. The municipal yield model includes liquidity as a state factor. Using a unique transaction dataset, we estimate the liquidity risk of municipals and its effect on bond yields. Empirical evidence shows that municipal bond yields are strongly affected by all three factors. The effects of default and liquidity risk on municipal yields increase with maturity and credit risk. Liquidity premium accounts for about 9–13% of municipal yields for AAA bonds, 9–15% for AA/A bonds and 8–19% for BBB bonds. A substantial portion of the maturity spread between long- and short-maturity municipal bonds is attributed to the liquidity premium. Ignoring the liquidity risk effect thus results in a severe underestimation of municipal bond yields. Conditional on the effects of default and liquidity risk, we obtain implicit tax rates very close to the statutory tax rates of high-income individuals and institutional investors. Furthermore, these implicit income tax rates are quite stable across bonds of different maturities. Results show that including liquidity risk in the municipal bond pricing model helps explain the muni puzzle.     

Pricing of time-varying liquidity risk in Finnish stock market: new evidence

Using two recently developed illiquidity measures, we estimate a conditional version of liquidity-adjusted capital asset pricing model (LCAPM), which allows for a time-varying decomposition of the total illiquidity premium into a level component and three risk components. The total estimated annualized illiquidity premium for the Finnish equities during 1997–2015 is 1.13–1.90% depending on the illiquidity measure. Of the three systematic liquidity risk components, risk arising from hedging of wealth shocks is the most important followed by commonality in liquidity risk, whereas flight to liquidity risk is not significantly priced in the Finnish stock market. Our results show that the liquidity risk is time varying, therefore the models estimating the risk-return relationship should address the issue of conditionality.     

The conditional relation between dispersion and return

The main goal of this paper is to examine the conditional pricing effect of return dispersion on the cross section of returns. We observe a systematic conditional relation between dispersion and return even after controlling for market, size and book-to-market factors. However, we find that return dispersion risk is asymmetrically priced with a significantly positive premium observed during periods of large market gains only. The findings are found to be robust to alternative conditional specifications of market returns, suggesting asymmetric pricing effect of the return dispersion factor. We provide alternative explanations for the systematic risk captured by the return dispersion factor and discuss implications for portfolio management and corporate decisions.     

Pricing the commonality across alternative measures of liquidity

We estimate latent factor models of liquidity, aggregated across various liquidity measures. Shocks to assets’ liquidity have a common component across measures which accounts for most of the explained variation in individual liquidity measures. We find that across-measure systematic liquidity is a priced factor while within-measure systematic liquidity does not exhibit additional pricing information. Controlling for across-measure systematic liquidity risk, there is some evidence that liquidity, as a characteristic of assets, is priced in the cross-section. Our results are robust to the inclusion of other equity characteristics and risk factors, such as market capitalization, book-to-market, and momentum.     

Factor pricing in commodity futures and the role of liquidity

This paper empirically investigates the pricing factors and their associated risk premiums of commodity futures. Existing pricing factors in equity and bond markets, including market premium and term structure, are tested in commodity futures markets. Hedging pressure in commodity futures markets and momentum effects is also considered. This study combines these factors to discuss their importance in explaining commodity future returns, while the literature has studied these factors separately. One of the important pricing factors in equity and bond markets is liquidity, but its role as a pricing factor in commodity futures markets has not yet been studied. To our knowledge, this research is the first to study liquidity as a pricing factor in commodity futures. The risk premiums of two momentum factors and speculators’ hedging pressure range from 2% to 3% per month and are greater than the risk premiums of roll yield (0.8%) and liquidity (0.5%). The result of a significant liquidity premium suggests that liquidity is priced in commodity futures.     

Can hedging tell the full story? Reconciling differences in United States aggregate- and industry-level exchange rate risk premium

While the importance of currency movements to industry competitiveness is theoretically well established, there is little evidence that currency risk impacts US industries. Applying a conditional asset pricing model to 36 US industries, we find that all industries have a significant currency premium that adds about 2.47 percentage points to the cost of equity and accounts for approximately 11.7% of total risk premium in absolute value. Cross-industry variation in the currency premium is explained by foreign income, industry competitiveness, leverage, liquidity, and other industry characteristics, while its time variation is explained by US aggregate foreign trade, monetary policy, growth opportunities, and other macro variables. The results indicate that methodological weakness, not hedging, explains the insignificant industry currency risk premium found in previous work, thus resolving the puzzle that currency risk premium is important at the aggregate stock market level, but not at the industry level.     

Global liquidity risk in the foreign exchange market

Using a broad data set of 20 US dollar exchange rates and order flow of institutional investors over 14 years, we construct a measure of global liquidity risk in the foreign exchange (FX) market. Our FX liquidity measure may be seen as the analog of the well-known Pastor–Stambaugh liquidity measure for the US stock market. We show that this measure has reasonable properties, and that there is a strong common component in liquidity across currencies. Finally, we provide evidence that liquidity risk is priced in the cross-section of currency returns, and estimate the liquidity risk premium in the FX market around 4.7 percent per annum.     

Commonality in Liquidity: Evidence from an Order-Driven Market Structure

Events such as the 1997 East Asian financial crisis indicate that individual firm liquidity is strongly influenced by marketwide factors. Previous market microstructure research, however, focuses almost exclusively on the firm‐specific attributes of liquidity. Our study follows the recent shift in emphasis toward commonality by examining systematic liquidity in an order‐driven market structure. Using data from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, we show that commonality in liquidity includes both market and industry components, and is pervasive across size‐sorted portfolios. We also find a significant market and industry component in individual firms' order flow. In contrast to quote‐driven results, we do not find a positive relation between firm size and sensitivity to changes in marketwide bid‐ask spreads.     

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.     

The asset pricing effects of UK market liquidity shocks: Evidence from tick data

Using tick data covering a 12 year period including much of the recent financial crisis we provide an unprecedented examination of the relationship between liquidity and stock returns in the UK market. Previous research on liquidity using high frequency data omits the recent financial crisis and is focused on the US, which has a different market structure to the UK. We first construct several microstructure liquidity measures for FTSE All Share stocks, demonstrating that tick data reveal patterns in intra-day liquidity not observable with lower frequency daily data. Our asymptotic principal component analysis captures commonality in liquidity across stocks to construct systematic market liquidity factors. We find that cross-sectional differences in returns exist across portfolios sorted by liquidity risk. These are strongly robust to market, size and value risk. The inclusion of a momentum factor partially explains some of the liquidity premia but they remain statistically significant. However, during the crisis period a long liquidity risk strategy experiences significantly negative alphas.