Search results

I survey applications of Markov switching models to the asset pricing and portfolio choice literatures. In particular, I discuss the potential that Markov switching models have to fit financial time series and at the same time provide powerful tools to test hypotheses formulated in the light of financial theories, and to generate positive economic value, as measured by risk-adjusted performances, in dynamic asset allocation applications. The chapter also reviews the role of Markov switching dynamics in modern asset pricing models in which the no-arbitrage principle is used to characterize the properties of the fundamental pricing measure in the presence of regimes.

In the build-up of an investment decision, the existence of both active and passive investment vehicles triggers a puzzle for investors. Indeed the confrontation between active and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a bone of contention since the inception of these investment structures. Accordingly, the objective of this chapter is to distinctly underscore whether an investor should be concerned in choosing between active and diverse passive investment structures.

The survivorship bias-free dataset consists of 776 equity funds which are domiciled either in America or Europe, and are likewise exposed to the equity markets of the same regions. In addition to geographical segmentation, equity funds are also categorised by structure and management type, specifically actively managed mutual funds, index mutual funds and passive exchange traded funds (‘ETFs’). This classification leads to the analysis of monthly net asset values (‘NAV’) of 12 distinct equally weighted portfolios, with a time horizon ranging from January 2004 to December 2014. Accordingly, the risk-adjusted performance of the equally weighted equity funds’ portfolios is examined by the application of mainstream single-factor and multi-factor asset pricing models namely Capital Asset Pricing Model (Fama, 1968; Fama & Macbeth, 1973; Lintner, 1965; Mossin, 1966; Sharpe, 1964; Treynor, 1961), Fama French Three-Factor (1993) and Carhart Four-Factor (1997).

Solely examination of monthly NAVs for a 10-year horizon suggests that active management is equivalent to index replication in terms of risk-adjusted returns. This prompts investors to be neutral gross of fees, yet when considering all transaction costs it is a distinct story. The relatively heftier fees charged by active management, predominantly initial fees, appear to revoke any outperformance in excess of the market portfolio, ensuing in a Fool’s Errand Hypothesis. Moreover, both active and index mutual funds’ performance may indeed be lower if financial advisors or distributors of equity funds charge additional fees over and above the fund houses’ expense ratios, putting the latter investment vehicles at a significant handicap vis-à-vis passive low-cost ETFs. This chapter urges investors to concentrate on expense ratios and other transaction costs rather than solely past returns, by accessing the cheapest available vehicle for each investment objective. Put simply, the general investor should retreat from portfolio management and instead access the market portfolio using low-cost index replication structures via an execution-only approach.

The battle among actively managed and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a grey area since the inception of mutual funds. The interest in the subject constantly lightens up as fresh instruments infiltrate financial markets. Indeed the mutual fund puzzle (Gruber, 1996) together with the enhanced growth of ETFs has again rejuvenated the active versus passive debate, making it worth a detailed analysis especially for the benefit of investors who confront a dilemma in choosing between the two management styles.

We examine explicitly priced financial distress risk in post-1990 equity markets. We add a financial distress risk factor to Fama and French's (1993) three-factor model, based on Griffin and Lemmon's (2002) findings that financial distress is not fully captured by the book-to-market factor. We test three-factor and four-factor capital asset pricing models using both annual buy-and-hold analysis and monthly time series analysis across portfolios adjusted for common book-to-market, size, and financial distress factors. We find empirical support for an Ohlson (1980) O-score-based financial distress risk four-factor asset pricing model in the U.S. and Japanese markets.

This paper studies the empirical application of an asset pricing model derived from the irrational individual behavior of loss aversion. Previous research using loss aversion asset pricing finds conclusive evidence that estimations match market equity premium and volatility using simulation data. We find that within its empirical application, the estimated errors are comparable to errors estimated from the capital asset pricing model. This study of the correlations between rational and irrational asset pricing model from the empirical results finds validity for both estimated values. Finally, we see the importance of cultures, economic development and financial development on asset pricing through an empirical examination of five pacific-basin countries in the estimation of asset pricing models.

In this paper we take up Bayesian inference for the consumption capital asset pricing model. The model has several econometric complications. First, it implies exact relationships between asset returns and the endowment growth rate that will be rejected by all possible realizations. Second, it was thought before that it is not possible to express asset returns in closed form. We show that Labadie's (1989) solution procedure can be applied to obtain asset returns in closed form and, therefore, it is possible to give an econometric interpretation in terms of traditional measurement error models. We apply the Bayesian inference procedures to the Mehra and Prescott (1985) dataset, we provide posterior distributions of structural parameters and posterior predictive asset return distributions, and we use these distributions to assess the existence of asset returns puzzles. The approach developed here, can be used in sampling theory and Bayesian frameworks alike. In fact, in a sampling-theory context, maximum likelihood can be used in a straightforward manner.

Purpose – This chapter studies a two-country model in which firms have the opportunity to invest directly both in home and foreign activities while operating in the context of imperfectly competitive markets for final goods and services. The model is an extension of Choi (1989).

Methodology approach – The firm is assumed to maximize the expected utility derived from the sequence of present and future levels of wealth, subject to budget constraint. We apply the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman approach.

Findings – In this chapter we show that the degree of imperfect competition may be different in the two countries and measured by the elasticity of the demand functions. In this model, we derive the optimal proportion of foreign investment, which is divided into two ratios. The first ratio is a hedging position. The second one is a speculative position.

Originality – Our model shows the role of alternative finance in the presence of differences between investment in two cases, namely, the case of market competition and the case of no market imperfections. This effect is shown by investment proportion and asset pricing relation.

This paper gives a selective review on some recent developments of nonparametric methods in both continuous and discrete time finance, particularly in the areas of nonparametric estimation and testing of diffusion processes, nonparametric testing of parametric diffusion models, nonparametric pricing of derivatives, nonparametric estimation and hypothesis testing for nonlinear pricing kernel, and nonparametric predictability of asset returns. For each financial context, the paper discusses the suitable statistical concepts, models, and modeling procedures, as well as some of their applications to financial data. Their relative strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Much theoretical and empirical research is needed in this area, and more importantly, the paper points to several aspects that deserve further investigation.

Lai, Li, Conover, and Wu (2010) propose a four-factor financial distress model to explain stock returns in the U.S. and Japanese markets. We examine this model in the stock markets of Australia, and six Asian markets (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand). We find broad empirical support for the four-factor financial distress risk asset-pricing model in those markets. The four-factor financial distress asset pricing model improves explanatory power beyond the Fama–French (1993) three-factor asset pricing model in six of the seven Asian-Pacific markets (12 of 14 portfolio groupings), while the Carhart (1997) momentum-based asset pricing model only improves explanatory power beyond the Fama–French model in three of the seven markets (4 of 14 portfolio groupings).

Although stock price co-movement has been examined extensively, its causes are not well understood. Using a decomposition method, we extract three information components from the turnover rate: market information, firm-specific information, and investors' opinion divergence. We find that market information strengthens stock price co-movement, whereas firm-specific information weakens it. Moreover, our analysis shows that divergence of investors' opinion increases stock price variations but weakens price co-movement.