There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

Two easily measured variables, size and book-to-market equity, combine to capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns associated with market 3, size, leverage, book-to-market equity, and earnings-price ratios. Moreover, when the tests allow for variation in 3 that is unrelated to size, the relation between market /3 and average return is flat, even when 3 is the only explanatory variable. THE ASSET-PRICING MODEL OF Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Black (1972) has long shaped the way academics and practitioners think about average returns and risk. The central prediction of the model is that the market portfolio of invested wealth is mean-variance efficient in the sense of Markowitz (1959). The efficiency of the market portfolio implies that (a) expected returns on securities are a positive linear function of their market O3s (the slope in the regression of a security's return on the market's return), and (b) market O3s suffice to describe the cross-section of expected returns. There are several empirical contradictions of the Sharpe-Lintner-Black (SLB) model. The most prominent is the size effect of Banz (1981). He finds that market equity, ME (a stock's price times shares outstanding), adds to the explanation of the cross-section of average returns provided by market Os. Average returns on small (low ME) stocks are too high given their f estimates, and average returns on large stocks are too low. Another contradiction of the SLB model is the positive relation between leverage and average return documented by Bhandari (1988). It is plausible that leverage is associated with risk and expected return, but in the SLB model, leverage risk should be captured by market S. Bhandari finds, howev er, that leverage helps explain the cross-section of average stock returns in tests that include size (ME) as well as A. Stattman (1980) and Rosenberg, Reid, and Lanstein (1985) find that average returns on U.S. stocks are positively related to the ratio of a firm's book value of common equity, BE, to its market value, ME. Chan, Hamao, and Lakonishok (1991) find that book-to-market equity, BE/ME, also has a strong role in explaining the cross-section of average returns on Japanese stocks.

http://www.business.unr.edu/faculty/liuc/files/badm742/fama_french_1992.pdf

The Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns

SEQUELS ARE RARELY AS good as the originals, so I approach this review of the market efficiency literature with trepidation. The task is thornier than it was 20 years ago, when work on efficiency was rather new. The literature is now so large that a full review is impossible, and is not attempted here. Instead, I discuss the work that I find most interesting, and I offer my views on what we have learned from the research on market efficiency.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1991.tb04636.x

Efficient Capital Markets: II

This paper studies the cross-sectional properties of return forecasts derived from Fama-MacBeth regressions. These forecasts mimic how an investor could, in real time, combine many firm characteristics to obtain a composite estimate of a stockâs expected return. Empirically, the forecasts vary substantially across stocks and have strong predictive power for actual returns. For example, using ten-year rolling estimates of Fama- MacBeth slopes and a cross-sectional model with 15 firm characteristics (all based on low-frequency data), the expected-return estimates have a cross-sectional standard deviation of 0.87% monthly and a predictive slope for future monthly returns of 0.74, with a standard error of 0.07.

/pdf/the-cross-section-of-expected-stock-returns-3oji85htnb.pdf

The Cross-section of Expected Stock Returns

ARCH modeling in finance: A review of the theory and empirical evidence

We estimate and compare a variety of continuous-time models of the short-term riskless rate using the Generalized Method of Moments. We find that the most successful models in capturing the dynamics of the short-term interest rate are those that allow the volatility of interest rate changes to be highly sensitive to the level of the riskless rate. A number of well-known models perform poorly in the comparisons because of their implicit restrictions on term structure volatility. We show that these results have important implications for the use of different term structure models in valuing interest rate contingent claims and in hedging interest rate risk.

https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-41459/CKLS%20An%20empirical%20comparison.pdf

An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Models of the Short‐Term Interest Rate

We examine how mutual funds from 26 developed and developing countries allocate their investment between domestic and foreign equity markets and what factors determine their asset allocations worldwide. We find robust evidence that these funds, in aggregate, allocate a disproportionately larger fraction of investment to domestic stocks. Results indicate that the stock market development and familiarity variables have significant, but asymmetric, effects on the domestic bias (domestic investors overweighting the local markets) and foreign bias (foreign investors under or overweighting the overseas markets), and that economic development, capital controls, and withholding tax variables have significant effects only on the foreign bias.

/pdf/what-determines-the-domestic-bias-and-foreign-bias-evidence-1oz79sm7v8.pdf

What Determines the Domestic Bias and Foreign Bias? Evidence from Mutual Fund Equity Allocations Worldwide

The intraday lead-lag relation between returns of the Major Market cash index and returns of the Major Market Index futures and S&P 500 futures is investigated. Empirical results show strong evidence that the futures leads the cash index and weak evidence that the cash index leads the futures. The asymmetric lead-lag relation holds between the futures and all component stocks, including those that trade in almost every five-minute interval. Evidence indicates that when more stocks move together (market-wide information) the futures leads the cash index to a greater degree. This suggests that the futures market is the main source of market-wide information. Article published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Financial Studies in its journal, The Review of Financial Studies.

A Further Analysis of the Lead–Lag Relationship Between the Cash Market and Stock Index Futures Market

This paper examines the relationship between the stock price synchronicity and analyst activity in emerging markets. Contrary to conventional wisdom that suggests that security analysts specialize in the production of firm-specific information, we find that the security analysts predominantly produce market-wide information. Using the R-square statistics of the market model as a measure of the synchronicity of stock price movements, we find that more analyst coverage leads to an increase in stock price synchronicity. Furthermore, after controlling for the influence of firm size on the lead-lag relation, we find that returns on high analyst-following portfolio lead returns on low analyst-following portfolio more than vice versa. We also find that the aggregate changes in the earnings forecast of high analyst-following portfolio affect the aggregate returns of the portfolio itself as well as the the low analyst-following portfolio while the aggregate changes in the earnings forecasts of low analyst-following portfolio have no predictive ability. Finally, when the forecast dispersion is high, the effect of analyst coverage on stock price synchronicity is reduced.

Stock Price Synchronicity and Analyst Coverage in Emerging Markets

https://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/13842.pdf

Kalok Chan

Papers

An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Models of the Short‐Term Interest Rate

What Determines the Domestic Bias and Foreign Bias? Evidence from Mutual Fund Equity Allocations Worldwide

A Further Analysis of the Lead–Lag Relationship Between the Cash Market and Stock Index Futures Market

Stock Price Synchronicity and Analyst Coverage in Emerging Markets

Stock Price Synchronicity and Analyst Coverage in Emerging Markets