Industry costs of equity
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that standard errors of more than 3.0% per year are typical for both the CAPM and the three-factor model of Fama and French (1993), and these large standard errors are the result of uncertainty about true factor risk premiums and imprecise estimates of the loadings of industries on the risk factors.
About: This article is published in Journal of Financial Economics.The article was published on 1997-02-01. It has received 6064 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Equity risk & Residual income valuation.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that many of the CAPM average-return anomalies are related, and they are captured by the three-factor model in Fama and French (FF 1993).
Abstract: Previous work shows that average returns on common stocks are related to firm characteristics like size, earnings/price, cash flow/price, book-to-market equity, past sales growth, long-term past return, and short-term past return. Because these patterns in average returns apparently are not explained by the CAPM, they are called anomalies. We find that, except for the continuation of short-term returns, the anomalies largely disappear in a three-factor model. Our results are consistent with rational ICAPM or APT asset pricing, but we also consider irrational pricing and data problems as possible explanations. RESEARCHERS HAVE IDENTIFIED MANY patterns in average stock returns. For example, DeBondt and Thaler (1985) find a reversal in long-term returns; stocks with low long-term past returns tend to have higher future returns. In contrast, Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) find that short-term returns tend to continue; stocks with higher returns in the previous twelve months tend to have higher future returns. Others show that a firm's average stock return is related to its size (ME, stock price times number of shares), book-to-marketequity (BE/ME, the ratio of the book value of common equity to its market value), earnings/price (E/P), cash flow/price (C/P), and past sales growth. (Banz (1981), Basu (1983), Rosenberg, Reid, and Lanstein (1985), and Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994).) Because these patterns in average stock returns are not explained by the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) of Sharpe (1964) and Lintner (1965), they are typically called anomalies. This paper argues that many of the CAPM average-return anomalies are related, and they are captured by the three-factor model in Fama and French (FF 1993). The model says that the expected return on a portfolio in excess of the risk-free rate [E(Ri) - Rf] is explained by the sensitivity of its return to three factors: (i) the excess return on a broad market portfolio (RM - Rf); (ii) the difference between the return on a portfolio of small stocks and the return on a portfolio of large stocks (SMB, small minus big); and (iii) the difference between the return on a portfolio of high-book-to-market stocks and the return on a portfolio of low-book-to-market stocks (HML, high minus low). Specifically, the expected excess return on portfolio i is,
6,737 citations
28 Jun 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the cross-sectional properties of return forecasts derived from Fama-MacBeth regressions were studied, and the authors found that the forecasts vary substantially across stocks and have strong predictive power for actual returns.
Abstract: 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 stockâs 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.
4,406 citations
Cites background from "Industry costs of equity"
...Momentum: Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) show that past 3- to 12-month returns are positively related to subsequent 3- to 12-month returns....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used proxy data on all Fortune 500 firms during 1994-2000 and found that family ownership creates value only when the founder serves as the CEO of the family firm or as its Chairman with a hired CEO.
Abstract: Using proxy data on all Fortune 500 firms during 1994-2000, we establish that, in order to understand whether and when family firms are more or less valuable than nonfamily firms, one must distinguish among three fundamental elements in the definition of family firms: ownership, control, and management. Specifically, we find that family ownership creates value only when the founder serves as the CEO of the family firm or as its Chairman with a hired CEO. Control mechanisms including dual share classes, pyramids, and voting agreements reduce the founder's premium. When descendants serve as CEOs, firm value is destroyed. Our findings further suggest that the classic owner-manager conflict in nonfamily firms is more costly than the conflict between family and nonfamily shareholders in founder-CEO firms. However, the conflict between family and nonfamily shareholders in descendant-CEO firms is more costly than the owner-manager conflict in nonfamily firms.
3,312 citations
Cites background or methods from "Industry costs of equity"
...The primary industries of our sample firms span 53 different two-digit SIC codes and 41 of the 48 industries defined by Fama and French (1997)....
[...]
...The primary industries of our sample firms span 53 different two-digit SIC codes and 41 of the 48 industries defined by Fama and French (1997). For those firms that meet our criteria, we include all years with data available between 1994 and 2000, even if the firm is not in the Fortune 500 list in a particular year....
[...]
...The Governance Index is the measure of corporate governance developed by Gompers et al. (2003) based on the IRRC data....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed and applied new measures of portfolio performance which use benchmarks based on the characteristics of stocks held by the portfolios that are evaluated, and applied these measures to a new database of mutual fund holdings covering over 2500 equity funds from 1975 to 1994.
Abstract: This article develops and applies new measures of portfolio performance which use benchmarks based on the characteristics of stocks held by the portfolios that are evaluated. Specifically, the benchmarks are constructed from the returns of 125 passive portfolios that are matched with stocks held in the evaluated portfolio on the basis of the market capitalization, book-to-market, and prior-year return characteristics of those stocks. Based on these benchmarks, "Characteristic Timing" and "Characteristic Selectivity" measures are developed that detect, respectively, whether portfolio managers successfully time their portfolio weightings on these characteristics and whether managers can select stocks that outperform the average stock having the same characteristics. We apply these measures to a new database of mutual fund holdings covering over 2500 equity funds from 1975 to 1994. Our results show that mutual funds, particularly aggressive-growth funds, exhibit some selectivity ability, but that funds exhibit no characteristic timing ability. CURRENTLY, OVER ONE TRILLION dollars are invested in actively managed equity mutual funds. Assuming that the fees and expenses of these funds average about one percent of assets-a conservative estimate that ignores the expenses that funds generate from buying and selling stocks-the total costs generated by this industry exceed $10 billion per year. Although mutual funds provide a number of services, such as check-writing and bookkeeping services, more than half of the expenses of mutual funds arise because of their stock-selection efforts.I This article examines whether mutual funds can systematically pick stocks that allow them to earn back a significant fraction of the fees and expenses that they generate. This question has been asked a number of times before, and has generated a great deal of controversy. Beginning with Jensen (1968),
3,081 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that the classic owner-manager conflict in non-family firms is more costly than the conflict between family and nonfamily shareholders in founder-CEO firms, and that the conflicts between family shareholders in descendant- CEO firms are more costly.
2,857 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify five common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, including three stock-market factors: an overall market factor and factors related to firm size and book-to-market equity.
24,874 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a body of positive microeconomic theory dealing with conditions of risk, which can be used to predict the behavior of capital marcets under certain conditions.
Abstract: One of the problems which has plagued thouse attempting to predict the behavior of capital marcets is the absence of a body of positive of microeconomic theory dealing with conditions of risk/ Althuogh many usefull insights can be obtaine from the traditional model of investment under conditions of certainty, the pervasive influense of risk in finansial transactions has forced those working in this area to adobt models of price behavior which are little more than assertions. A typical classroom explanation of the determinationof capital asset prices, for example, usually begins with a carefull and relatively rigorous description of the process through which individuals preferences and phisical relationship to determine an equilibrium pure interest rate. This is generally followed by the assertion that somehow a market risk-premium is also determined, with the prices of asset adjusting accordingly to account for differences of their risk.
17,922 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, Bhandari et al. found that the relationship between market/3 and average return is flat, even when 3 is the only explanatory variable, and when the tests allow for variation in 3 that is unrelated to size.
Abstract: 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.
14,517 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the problem of selecting optimal security portfolios by risk-averse investors who have the alternative of investing in risk-free securities with a positive return or borrowing at the same rate of interest and who can sell short if they wish is discussed.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the problem of selecting optimal security portfolios by risk-averse investors who have the alternative of investing in risk-free securities with a positive return or borrowing at the same rate of interest and who can sell short if they wish. It presents alternative and more transparent proofs under these more general market conditions for Tobin's important separation theorem that “ … the proportionate composition of the non-cash assets is independent of their aggregate share of the investment balance … and for risk avertere in purely competitive markets when utility functions are quadratic or rates of return are multivariate normal. The chapter focuses on the set of risk assets held in risk averters' portfolios. It discusses various significant equilibrium properties within the risk asset portfolio. The chapter considers a few implications of the results for the normative aspects of the capital budgeting decisions of a company whose stock is traded in the market. It explores the complications introduced by institutional limits on amounts that either individuals or corporations may borrow at given rates, by rising costs of borrowed funds, and certain other real world complications.
9,970 citations
TL;DR: Ebsco as mentioned in this paper examines the arbitrage model of capital asset pricing as an alternative to the mean variance pricing model introduced by Sharpe, Lintner and Treynor.
6,763 citations