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.     

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.     

A Dynamic Model of Firm Valuation

We propose a dynamic version of the dividend discount model, solve it in closed form, and assess its empirical validity. The valuation method is tractable and can be easily implemented. We find that our model produces equity value forecasts that are very close to market prices, and explains a large proportion of the observed variation in share prices. Moreover, we show that a simple portfolio strategy based on the difference between market and estimated values earns considerably positive returns. These returns cannot be simply explained either by the Fama‐French three‐factor model (even after adding a momentum factor) or the Fama‐French five‐factor model.     

Empirical Evidence on Capital Investment, Growth Options, and Security Returns

Growth in capital expenditures conditions subsequent classification of firms to portfolios based on size and book‐to‐market ratios, as in the widely used Fama and French (1992, 1993) methods. Growth in capital expenditures also explains returns to portfolios and the cross section of future stock returns. These findings are consistent with recent theoretical models (e.g., Berk, Green, and Naik (1999)) in which the exercise of investment‐growth options results in changes in both valuation and expected stock returns.     

Do the Fama–French Factors Proxy for Innovations in Predictive Variables?

The Fama–French factors HML and SMB are correlated with innovations in variables that describe investment opportunities. A model that includes shocks to the aggregate dividend yield and term spread, default spread, and one‐month Treasury‐bill yield explains the cross section of average returns better than the Fama–French model. When loadings on the innovations in the predictive variables are present in the model, loadings on HML and SMB lose their explanatory power for the cross section of returns. The results are consistent with an ICAPM explanation for the empirical success of the Fama–French portfolios.     

INTANGIBLE ASSETS,BOOK‐TO‐MARKET,AND COMMON STOCK RETURNS

I examine two anomalies where the Fama and French three‐factor model fails to adequately explain monthly industry and index returns. Both anomalies are consistent with a bad model problem where the book‐to‐market factor introduces a negative bias in the intercepts. I propose the intangibles model as an alternative where the three‐factor model is known to have difficulty. This alternative model, which replaces the book‐to‐market factor with zero investment portfolio returns based on prior investments in intangible assets, is well specified in random samples, has comparable power, and fully explains both anomalies.     

On the differences in measuring SMB and HML in the UK – Do they matter?

The Fama–French (FF) three factor model expands the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to include two additional factors to the market factor – SMB, employed to capture a firm size effect in returns and HML employed to capture book-to-market effects in returns. In the UK, different researchers use different ways of calculating SMB and HML in the context of empirical applications of the three factor model, or extensions of it, perhaps because they believe the differences in the construction of the SMB and HML factors to be relatively unimportant from an empirical standpoint. We investigate whether indeed factor construction methods are unimportant. Our conclusion is that they do matter.     

THE IMPORTANCE OF LIQUIDITY AS A FACTOR IN ASSET PRICING

We employ the Fama‐French time‐series regression approach to examine liquidity as a risk factor affecting stock returns. Prior studies establish liquidity as an important consideration in investment decisions. Here, liquidity is found to be an important factor affecting portfolio returns, even after the effects of market, size, book‐to‐market equity, and momentum are considered. Nonzero intercepts remain, however, indicating continued missing risk factors.     

THE FAMA‐FRENCH MODEL,LEVERAGE, AND THE MODIGLIANI‐MILLER PROPOSITIONS

For a cost‐of‐equity model to conform to the Modigliani‐Miller cost‐of‐capital propositions, any sensitivity coefficients in the model must be related to the firm's leverage. In this paper I apply these principles to the Fama‐French model for the cost of equity and develop the relation between its sensitivity coefficients and firm leverage. I then examine an empirical process developed by Fama and French (1997) to model the evolution through time of their sensitivity coefficients and show that this empirical process is inconsistent with the Modigliani‐Miller propositions. Separable functions are proposed for these sensitivity coefficients that are consistent with the Modigliani‐Miller propositions.     

Tangibility and investment irreversibility in asset pricing

Zhang (2005) and Cooper (2006) provide a theoretical risk‐based explanation for the value premium by suggesting a nexus between firms’ book‐to‐market ratio and investment irreversibility. They argue that unproductive physical capacity is costly in contracting conditions but provides growth opportunities during economic expansions, resulting in covariant risk between firms’ investment in tangible assets and market‐wide returns. This article uses the Australian accounting environment to empirically test this theory – a test that is not possible using US data. Consistent with the theoretical argument, tangibility is priced in equity returns, and augmenting the Fama and French three‐factor model with a tangibility factor increases model explanatory power.     

Information asymmetry and the value of cash

This study investigates the market value of corporate cash holdings in connection with firm-specific and time-varying information asymmetry. Analyzing a large international sample, we test two opposing hypotheses. According to the pecking order theory, adverse selection problems make external financing costly and imply a higher market value of a marginal dollar of cash in states with higher information asymmetry. In contrast, the free cash flow theory predicts that excessive cash holdings bundled with higher information asymmetry generate moral hazard problems and lead to a lower market value of a marginal dollar of cash. We use the dispersion of analysts’ earnings per share forecasts as our main measure of firm-specific and time-varying information asymmetry. Extending the valuation regressions of Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 1998. Taxes, financing decisions, and firm value. Journal of Finance 53, 819–843], our results support the free cash flow theory and indicate that the value of corporate cash holdings is lower in states with a higher degree of information asymmetry.     

Australian evidence on the implementation of the size and value premia

This study investigates whether passive investment managers can exploit the size and value premia without incurring prohibitive transaction costs or being exposed to substantial tracking error risk. Returns on the value premium are shown to be pervasive across size groups, while the size premium is nonlinear and driven by microcaps. The value premium cannot be explained by the capital asset pricing model; however, returns on value portfolios do covary across monetary regimes. The substantial turnover required to achieve annual rebalancing and the relative illiquidity of Australian small‐cap firms means that investing in a portfolio of large‐cap value firms appears to be the best way for passive fund managers to exploit the Fama and French (1993) premia.     

Firm Size,Book-to-Market Ratio,and Security Returns: A Holdout Sample of Financial Firms

Fama and French (1992) document a significant relation between firm size, book-to-market ratios, and security returns for nonfinancial firms. Because of their initial interest in leverage as an explanatory variable for security returns, Fama and French exclude from their analysis financial firms, thus creating a natural holdout sample on which to test the robustness of their results. We document that the relation between firm size, book-to-market ratios, and security returns is similar for financial and nonfinancial firms. In addition, we present evidence that survivorship bias does not significantly affect the estimated size or book-to-market premiums in returns. Our results indicate data-snooping and selection biases do not explain the size and book-to-market patterns in returns.     

What do the Fama–French factors add to C-CAPM?

This study extends standard C-CAPM by including two additional factors related to firm size (SMB) and book-to-market value ratio (HML) — the Fama–French factors. C-CAPM is least able to price firms with low book-to-market ratios. The explanation of these returns, as well as the returns on the SMB and HML portfolios, is significantly improved by the inclusion of the HML factor. The component of the risk premia explained by consumption varies across size. We suggest that a possible explanation for the role of HML is its association with the investment growth prospects of firms.     

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.     

Implied volatility and future portfolio returns

Prior studies find that the CBOE volatility index (VIX) predicts returns on stock market indices, suggesting implied volatilities measured by VIX are a risk factor affecting security returns or an indicator of market inefficiency. We extend prior work in three important ways. First, we investigate the relationship between future returns and current implied volatility levels and innovations. Second, we examine portfolios sorted on book-to-market equity, size, and beta. Third, we control for the four Fama and French [Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56.] and Carhart [Carhart, M., 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.] factors. We find that VIX-related variables have strong predictive ability.     

UK Evidence on the Characteristics versus Covariance Debate

We evaluate the Fama–French three‐factor model in the UK using the approach of Daniel and Titman (1997) to determine whether characteristics or covariance risk better explains the size and value premiums. Across all three factors, we find that return premiums bear little relationship to the corresponding loadings. We show that small and value stocks earn higher returns irrespective of their return covariance. Our study contributes to the existing literature by reporting original findings on the Fama–French three‐factor model in the UK and by reporting results that complement existing evidence from similar studies in the USA and Japan.     

Investment Policies and Excess Returns in Corporate Spin-offs: Evidence from the US Market

This article analyzes excess returns generated by corporate spin-offs with respect to changes in investment policies of the spun-off companies. Following the spin-off, the best performing spun-off companies with low growth opportunities exhibit a significant reduction in investment and the best performing high-growth spun-off companies tend to increase or maintain the previous level of investment. The results provide evidence of the existence of a direct monotonic relationship between the size of the change in the level of investment, Tobin’s Q, and excess returns based on the Fama and French (J. financ. Econ. 33: 3–56, 1993) model.     

New Evidence on Sources of Leverage Effects in Individual Stocks

I test Black's leverage effect hypothesis on a panel of U.S. stocks from 1997 to 2012. I find that negative stock return innovations increase the future volatility of equity returns by about 36% more than positive ones. There is a strong and positive relation between variation in the size of these leverage effects and variation in the firm's use of debt. I uncover this relation by applying the Fama/French/Carhart 4‐factor asset pricing model in the exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity mean equation and by using panel data to control for firm‐ and time‐invariant unobservables via first differences and two‐way fixed effects.     

An intertemporal capital asset pricing model with bank credit growth as a state variable

An ICAPM which includes bank credit growth as a state variable explains 94% of the cross-sectional variation in the average returns on the 25 Fama–French portfolios. We find compelling evidence that bank credit growth is priced in the cross-section of expected stock returns, even after controlling for well-documented asset pricing factors. These results are robust to the inclusion of industry portfolios in the set of test assets. They are also robust to the addition of firm characteristics and lagged instruments in the factor model. Bank credit growth is important because of its ability to predict business cycle variables as well as future labor income growth. These findings underscore the relevance of bank credit growth in stock pricing.