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 paper, the authors examined how a firm's advertising and R&D affects the firm's β-risk and idiosyncratic risk, which are metrics of interest to both finance executives and senior management.
Abstract: In this study, we examine how a firm’s advertising and R&D affects the firm’s β-risk and idiosyncratic risk, which are metrics of interest to both finance executives and senior management. Due to the existence of non-normal finance data and heteroscedasticity, this study uses quantile regression to analyze the sample in order to avoid estimation bias. We generate six empirical generalizations. (1) Advertising is significantly associated with lower β-risk for firms with lower, median and higher β-risk. (2) R&D significantly increases β-risk for firms with median and higher β-risk firms. (3) Advertising is significantly associated with lower idiosyncratic risk for firms with higher idiosyncratic risk. (4) R&D is significantly associated with higher idiosyncratic risk for firms with median and higher idiosyncratic risk. (5) Our evidence shows that both advertising and R&D have a stronger effect on firms with higher β- and idiosyncratic risk than on those with lower β- and idiosyncratic risk, respectively. (6) Moreover, our evidence suggests that advertising and R&D tests resoundingly support our hypothesis that the coefficients vary across the quantiles
9 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a volatility-based capital asset pricing model (V-CAPM) in which asset betas change discretely with respect to changes in investors' expectations regarding near-term aggregate volatility.
Abstract: We propose a volatility-based capital asset pricing model (V-CAPM) in which asset betas change discretely with respect to changes in investors’ expectations regarding near-term aggregate volatility. Using a novel measure to proxy uncertainty about expected changes in aggregate volatility, i.e. monthly range of the VIX index (RVIX), we find that portfolio betas change significantly when uncertainty about aggregate volatility expectations is beyond a certain threshold level. Due to changes in their market betas, small and value stocks are perceived as riskier than their big and growth counterparts in bad times, when uncertainty about aggregate volatility expectations is high. The proposed model yields a positive and significant market risk premium during periods when investors do not expect significant uncertainty in near-term aggregate volatility. Our findings support a volatility-based time-varying risk explanation.
9 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that investment is more elastic to changes in the discount rate in a frictionless world than in a world with financial frictions, meaning that a given magnitude of change in investment is associated with a higher magnitude of changes in discount rate.
Abstract: In a frictionless world, investment is perfectly elastic to changes in the discount rate. With financial frictions, investment is less elastic, meaning that a given magnitude of change in investment is associated with a higher magnitude of change in the discount rate. Equivalently, investment is a more powerful predictor of future stock returns. Consistent with this prediction, we document that the asset growth, external finance, and accrual anomalies in the cross-section of stock returns are much stronger in financially more constrained firms than in financially less constrained firms. Further tests show that this effect of financial constraints is distinct from the effect of financial distress and the effect of limits of arbitrage on the magnitude of the anomalies.
8 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the relationship between financial distress and equity returns and found that financial distress is a robust and negative predictor of future stock returns apart from the effect of strategic shareholder actions.
Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between financial distress and equity returns. Using strategic action proxies, we find that financial distress is a robust and negative predictor of future stock returns apart from the effect of strategic shareholder actions. This shows that the distress puzzle cannot be fully explained by shareholder strategic actions or shareholder advantages. The distress effect also cannot be explained by traditional risk factors, characteristics, or mispricing. However, the results presented in this paper are consistent with the risk-shifting hypothesis. Three findings support this claim. First, distressed firms tend to overinvest, earn low profits, and exhaust their cash flows. This effect is concentrated in low growth opportunity firms and in hard-to-value firms. Second, distress effects are concentrated in firms without credit ratings or convertible debt and in which CEOs have equity holdings. Third, distressed firms tend to have high credit spreads.
8 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined whether it is possible to forecast one-year-ahead returns of individual companies based on the observed "psychopathic" characteristics of their top management team and found that language characteristic of psychopaths present in annual report narratives, questionable integrity, excessive risk-taking and failure to contribute to charitable undertakings tend to reduce future shareholder wealth.
Abstract: This paper examines whether it is possible to forecast one-year-ahead returns of individual companies based on the observed ‘psychopathic’ characteristics of their top management team. We find that language characteristic of psychopaths present in annual report narratives, questionable integrity, excessive risk-taking and failure to contribute to charitable undertakings tend to reduce future shareholder wealth. These findings imply that firms could benefit from incorporating psychological evaluation in their recruitment processes, especially when seeking to fill senior management posts. While the return predictability described in this paper supports the upper echelons perspective, it simultaneously challenges the notion of informationally efficient stock prices.
8 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