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
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The authors investigated the daily trading behavior and price impact of foreign investors in six Asian emerging equity markets over the past two decades and provided new insights on the dynamics of flows, FX, and equity markets.
Abstract: This paper takes a perspective from foreign exchange (FX) to investigate the daily trading behavior and price impact of foreign investors in six Asian emerging equity markets over the past two decades. It exploits the unsolved interrelationship between capital flows and equity returns, and it also explores a possible role of FX and provides several new findings. First, flows chase domestic equity returns but not currency returns. Second, flows have an impact on FX returns as well as equity returns, and both impacts are more than temporary. When currency effects are washed out, the equity effects either become insignificant or are substantially reduced in magnitude. Finally, both past returns and volatility in the global equity/FX market affect flows. Our findings challenge the literature, which neglects FX on this topic, and provide new insights on the dynamics of flows, FX, and equity markets.
2 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate and present evidence for an equity as a call option hypothesis for the value premium and show that volatility decreases the options-leverage of equity, which decreases expected return.
Abstract: The value premium is the empirical observation that low market/book “value” stocks have higher returns than high market/book “growth” stocks. In this paper, we investigate and present evidence for an “equity as a call option hypothesis” for the value premium. Volatility decreases the options-leverage of equity, which decreases expected return. At the same time, volatility increases value for equities with options features and, thus, it increases market/book. Because volatility has opposite impacts on expected return and value, there is a value premium.
2 citations
TL;DR: This article found that institutional trading is informative about future prices only on the short side, and the return predictability is concentrated among low institutional ownership stocks, and furthermore, it is due to negative abnormal returns following institutional selling, and institutional buying does not have predictive power.
Abstract: Using the quarterly holdings data, I find that institutional trading is informative about future prices only on the short side. The return predictability is concentrated among low institutional ownership stocks. Furthermore, it is due to negative abnormal returns following institutional selling, and institutional buying does not have predictive power. The results hold even among hard-to-value stocks in which prior studies find the strongest evidence of smart institutions. My findings are best reconciled with institutions engaging in extensive informed trading, but the return impact is more persistent and observable in situations in which price reacts more slowly to information.
1 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the OLS estimator of CAPM beta is shown to violate strong exogeneity conditions in a linear regression setting and is likely biased in a regime-switching setting.
Abstract: In this paper, we show that conditions derived under the CAPM ensure only weak exogeneity in a linear regression setting. Since strong exogeneity is not guaranteed, the OLS estimator of CAPM beta is only consistent but not necessarily unbiased. We provide empirical evidence that individual daily stock returns exibit regime-switching patterns and may violate strong exogeneity conditions. As such, the OLS estimator of CAPM beta is likely biased. Based on the empirical patterns of daily stock returns, we use three regime-switching models to illustrate thatthe OLS estimator of CAPM beta can be consistent but at the same time biased. Simulation results based on these three regime-switching models show that biases of the OLS beta estimator can be substantial.
1 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors use ex-ante firm characteristics and covariances to construct a tradeable Safe Minus Risky (SMR) portfolio that hedges market downturns out-of-sample.
Abstract: Stocks that hedge against sustained market downturns — periods from peak to trough in S&P500 levels at the business cycle frequency — should have low expected returns, but they do not. We use ex-ante firm characteristics and covariances to construct a tradeable Safe Minus Risky (SMR) portfolio that hedges market downturns out-of-sample. Although downturns correspond to significant declines in GDP growth, SMR has significant positive average returns and four factor alphas (both about 0.75% per month). Risk-based models do not explain SMR’s returns, but mispricing does. Risky stocks are overpriced when sentiment is high, resulting in subsequent returns of -1% per month.
1 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