Posted Content•
The Cross-Section of Volatility and Expected Returns
TL;DR: This paper examined the pricing of aggregate volatility risk in the cross-section of stock returns and found that stocks with high sensitivities to innovations in aggregate volatility have low average returns, and that stock with high idiosyncratic volatility relative to the Fama and French (1993) model have abysmally low return.
Abstract: 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 In addition, we find that stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility relative to the Fama and French (1993) 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
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the nexus between idiosyncratic volatility and corporate social responsibility (CSR) and document that IV is positively correlated with net aggregate CSR and is negatively correlated with a CSR specific risk factor (namely stakeholder risk).
Abstract: Idiosyncratic volatility (IV) is regarded as a measure of firm specific information and has been shown to be correlated with ex post lower stock returns. We explore the nexus between IV and corporate social responsibility (CSR) and document that IV is positively correlated with net aggregate CSR and is negatively correlated with a CSR specific risk factor (namely stakeholder risk). Our findings show that: (i) less (more) reliance on market information (firm specific information) implies more difficulty in predictive accuracy; (ii) negative correlation between IV and exposure to the above mentioned CSR risk dimension contributes to explain the puzzle of the negative excess returns of high IV portfolios widely documented in the literature. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that CSR reduces flexibility in answering to productive shocks via reduction of stakeholders’ wellbeing, thereby making earnings less predictable in conventional ways, even though they are less exposed to risk of conflicts with stakeholders.
111 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the empirical relation between risk and return in emerging equity markets and found that this relation is flat, or even negative, and argued that the volatility effect in emerging markets is only weakly related to that in developed equity markets, which argues against a common factor explanation.
Abstract: We examine the empirical relation between risk and return in emerging equity markets and find that this relation is flat, or even negative. This is inconsistent with theoretical models such as the CAPM, which predict a positive relation, but consistent with the results of studies for developed equity markets. The volatility effect appears to be growing stronger over time, which we argue might be related to the increased delegated portfolio management in emerging markets. Finally, we find that the volatility effect in emerging markets is only weakly related to that in developed equity markets, which argues against a common-factor explanation.
107 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a unified explanation for several apparent anomalies in the cross-section of asset returns, namely the failure of the CAPM to account for the crosssectional relation between average stock returns and firm valuation ratios, past investment, profitability, market beta, or idiosyncratic volatility.
Abstract: We provide a unified explanation for several apparent anomalies in the cross-section of asset returns, namely the failure of the CAPM to account for the cross-sectional relation between average stock returns and firm valuation ratios, past investment, profitability, market beta, or idiosyncratic volatility. Using a calibrated structural model, we argue that these characteristics are imperfect proxies for the share of growth opportunities to firm value, which determines firms' exposures to capital-embodied shocks, and risk premia. Return differences among firms sorted on the above characteristics are largely driven by the same systematic factor related to embodied technology shocks.
107 citations
TL;DR: The authors showed that stocks of truly local firms have returns that exceed the return on stocks of geographically dispersed firms by 70 basis points per month, by extracting state name counts from annual reports filed with the SEC on form 10-K, distinguish firms with business operations in only a few states from firms with operations in multiple states.
Abstract: This paper shows that stocks of truly local firms have returns that exceed the return on stocks of geographically dispersed firms by 70 basis points per month. By extracting state name counts from annual reports filed with the SEC on form 10-K, we distinguish firms with business operations in only a few states from firms with operations in multiple states. Our findings are consistent with the view that lower investor recognition for local firms results in higher stock returns to compensate investors for insufficient diversification.
106 citations
TL;DR: The authors show that the asset growth effect is pervasive and evidence to the contrary arises due to specification choices, and that one measure of asset growth, the change in total assets, largely subsumes the explanatory power of other measures.
Abstract: Recent papers have debated whether the negative correlation between measures of firm asset growth and subsequent returns is of little importance since it applies only to small firms, justified as compensation for risk, or evidence of mispricing. We show that the asset growth effect is pervasive and evidence to the contrary arises due to specification choices; that one measure of asset growth, the change in total assets, largely subsumes the explanatory power of other measures; that the ability of asset growth to explain either the cross section of returns or the time series of factor loadings is linked to firm idiosyncratic volatility; that the return effect is concentrated around earnings announcements; and that analyst forecasts are systematically higher than realized earnings for faster growing firms. In general, there appears to be no asset growth effect in firms with low idiosyncratic volatility. Our findings are consistent with a mispricing-based explanation for the asset growth effect in which arbitrage costs allow the effect to persist.
102 citations
References
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present some additional tests of the mean-variance formulation of the asset pricing model, which avoid some of the problems of earlier studies and provide additional insights into the nature of the structure of security returns.
Abstract: Considerable attention has recently been given to general equilibrium models of the pricing of capital assets Of these, perhaps the best known is the mean-variance formulation originally developed by Sharpe (1964) and Treynor (1961), and extended and clarified by Lintner (1965a; 1965b), Mossin (1966), Fama (1968a; 1968b), and Long (1972) In addition Treynor (1965), Sharpe (1966), and Jensen (1968; 1969) have developed portfolio evaluation models which are either based on this asset pricing model or bear a close relation to it In the development of the asset pricing model it is assumed that (1) all investors are single period risk-averse utility of terminal wealth maximizers and can choose among portfolios solely on the basis of mean and variance, (2) there are no taxes or transactions costs, (3) all investors have homogeneous views regarding the parameters of the joint probability distribution of all security returns, and (4) all investors can borrow and lend at a given riskless rate of interest The main result of the model is a statement of the relation between the expected risk premiums on individual assets and their "systematic risk" Our main purpose is to present some additional tests of this asset pricing model which avoid some of the problems of earlier studies and which, we believe, provide additional insights into the nature of the structure of security returns The evidence presented in Section II indicates the expected excess return on an asset is not strictly proportional to its B, and we believe that this evidence, coupled with that given in Section IV, is sufficiently strong to warrant rejection of the traditional form of the model given by (1) We then show in Section III how the cross-sectional tests are subject to measurement error bias, provide a solution to this problem through grouping procedures, and show how cross-sectional methods are relevant to testing the expanded two-factor form of the model We show in Section IV that the mean of the beta factor has had a positive trend over the period 1931-65 and was on the order of 10 to 13% per month in the two sample intervals we examined in the period 1948-65 This seems to have been significantly different from the average risk-free rate and indeed is roughly the same size as the average market return of 13 and 12% per month over the two sample intervals in this period This evidence seems to be sufficiently strong enough to warrant rejection of the traditional form of the model given by (1) In addition, the standard deviation of the beta factor over these two sample intervals was 20 and 22% per month, as compared with the standard deviation of the market factor of 36 and 38% per month Thus the beta factor seems to be an important determinant of security returns
2,899 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the generalized autoregressive conditionally heteroskedastic (GARCH) model of returns is modified to allow for volatility feedback effect, which amplifies large negative stock returns and dampens large positive returns, making stock returns negatively skewed and increasing the potential for large crashes.
Abstract: It is sometimes argued that an increase in stock market volatility raises required stock returns, and thus lowers stock prices. This paper modifies the generalized autoregressive conditionally heteroskedastic (GARCH) model of returns to allow for this volatility feedback effect. The resulting model is asymmetric, because volatility feedback amplifies large negative stock returns and dampens large positive returns, making stock returns negatively skewed and increasing the potential for large crashes. The model also implies that volatility feedback is more important when volatility is high. In U.S. monthly and daily data in the period 1926-88, the asymmetric model fits the data better than the standard GARCH model, accounting for almost half the skewness and excess kurtosis of standard monthly GARCH residuals. Estimated volatility discounts on the stock market range from 1% in normal times to 13% after the stock market crash of October 1987 and 25% in the early 1930's. However volatility feedback has little effect on the unconditional variance of stock returns.
1,793 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined a class of continuous-time models that incorporate jumps in returns and volatility, in addition to diffusive stochastic volatility, and developed a likelihood-based estimation strategy and provided estimates of model parameters, spot volatility, jump times and jump sizes using both S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 index returns.
Abstract: This paper examines a class of continuous-time models that incorporate jumps in returns and volatility, in addition to diffusive stochastic volatility. We develop a likelihood-based estimation strategy and provide estimates of model parameters, spot volatility, jump times and jump sizes using both S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 index returns. Estimates of jumps times, jump sizes and volatility are particularly useful for disentangling the dynamic effects of these factors during periods of market stress, such as those in 1987, 1997 and 1998. Using both formal and informal diagnostics, we find strong evidence for jumps in volatility, even after accounting for jumps in returns. We use implied volatility curves computed from option prices to judge the economic differences between the models. Finally, we evaluate the impact of estimation risk on option prices and find that the uncertainty in estimating the parameters and the spot volatility has important, though very different, effects on option prices.
1,040 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, a new way to generalize the insights of static asset pricing theory to a multi-period setting is proposed, which uses a loglinear approximation to the budget constraint to substitute out consumption from a standard intertemporal asset pricing model.
Abstract: This paper proposes a new way to generalize the insights of static asset pricing theory to a multi-period setting. The paper uses a loglinear approximation to the budget constraint to substitute out consumption from a standard intertemporal asset pricing model. In a homoskedastic lognormal selling, the consumption-wealth ratio is shown to depend on the elasticity of intertemporal substitution in consumption, while asset risk premia are determined by the coefficient of relative risk aversion. Risk premia are related to the covariances of asset returns with the market return and with news about the discounted value of all future market returns.
805 citations
TL;DR: This article investigated whether market-wide liquidity is a state variable important for asset pricing and found that expected stock returns are related cross-sectionally to the sensitivities of returns to fluctuations in aggregate liquidity.
Abstract: This study investigates whether market-wide liquidity is a state variable important for asset pricing. We find that expected stock returns are related cross-sectionally to the sensitivities of returns to fluctuations in aggregate liquidity. Our monthly liquidity measure, an average of individual-stock measures estimated with daily data, relies on the principle that order flow induces greater return reversals when liquidity is lower. Over a 34-year period, the average return on stocks with high sensitivities to liquidity exceeds that for stocks with low sensitivities by 7.5% annually, adjusted for exposures to the market return as well as size, value, and momentum factors.
789 citations