Search results

This paper aims to study the cross section of expected returns on Shari’ah-compliant stocks in Pakistan by using single- and multi-factor asset pricing models.

To estimate cross section of expected returns of Shari’ah-compliant stocks, the study uses capital asset pricing model (CAPM), Fama-French three-factor model and Fama-French five-factor model. Data for the period 2001-2015 on 217 companies are used. For the market portfolio, PSX-100 and Dow Jones Islamic Index for Pakistan are used.

The study could not find empirical support for CAPM using Lintner (1965), Black et al. (1972) and Fama and Macbeth (1973) approach. Nonetheless, the relation between beta and returns is positive in up-market and negative in down-market. The results of Fama-French three-factor and five-factor models suggest that size premium is positive and significant for explaining the cross section of stock returns of small size stocks, whereas value premium is positive and significant for explaining the cross section of returns of high value stocks.

The results suggest that fund managers can use Shari’ah-compliant stocks for portfolio diversification and for offering specialized investments given the positive market excess returns and the existence of size and value premium on Shari’ah-compliant stocks.

This is the first study on Fama-French (2015) five-factor model for Islamic capital markets in Pakistan.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the pricing of European real estate equities. The study examines the main drivers of real estate equity returns and determines whether loadings on systematic risk factors – the excess market return, small minus big (SMB), HIGH minus low (HML) – can explain cross‐sectional return differences in unconditional as well as in conditional asset pricing tests.

The paper draws upon time‐series regressions to investigate determinants of real estate equity returns. Rolling Fama‐French regressions are applied to estimate time‐varying loadings on systematic risk factors. Unconditional as well as conditional monthly Fama‐MacBeth regressions are employed to explain cross‐sectional return variations.

Systematic risk factors are important drivers of European real estate equity returns. Returns are positively related to the excess market return and to a value factor. A size factor impacts predominantly negatively on real estate returns. The results indicate increasing market integration after the introduction of the Euro. Loadings on systematic risk factors have weak explanatory power in unconditional cross‐section regressions but can explain returns in a conditional framework. Beta – and to a lesser extent the loading on HML – is positively related to returns in up‐markets and negatively in down markets. Equities which load positively on SMB outperform in down markets.

The implementation of a liquidity or a momentum factor could provide further evidence on the pricing of European real estate equities.

The findings could help investors to manage the risk exposure more effectively. Investors should furthermore be able to estimate their cost of equity more precisely and might better be able to pick stocks for time varying investment strategies.

This is the first paper to examine the pricing of real estate equity returns in a pan‐European setting.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of value-at-risk (VaR) in the cross-section of stock returns in the Indian stock market during the period 1999-2014.

The paper follows the methodology of Bali and Cakici (2004) to investigate the relationship between VaR and stock returns and employs Fama and French’s (1993) and Fama and Macbeth’s (1973) methods to find out the predictive power of VaR in time-series and cross-section settings. Further, it follows Fama and French (2008) to estimate separate cross-section regressions for small, medium and big stocks to verify the pervasiveness of the anomaly.

This study finds positive risk premium associated with VaR in the Indian stock market during 2001-2008, the period of short selling constraint for institutional investors. This premium is confined to small stocks and low institutional holdings. The positive premium can be attributed to short selling constraints.

The risk-return tradeoff can be utilized by investors and fund managers. As it is confined to small stocks, transaction costs may affect the profitability of the investment strategy.

The study contributes to the scanty empirical literature on the role of VaR in the cross-section of expected stock returns. Moreover, this is the first study that explores the relationship between VaR and stock returns in the asset pricing context for the Indian stock market.

Daniel and Titman (1997) contend that the Fama‐French three‐factor model’s ability to explain cross‐sectional variation in expected returns is a result of characteristics that firms have in common rather than any risk‐based explanation. The primary aim of the current paper is to provide out‐of‐sample tests of the characteristics versus risk factor argument. The main focus of our tests is to examine the intercept terms in Fama‐French regressions, wherein test portfolios are formed by a three‐way sorting procedure on book‐to‐market, size and factor loadings. Our main test focuses on ‘characteristic‐balanced’ portfolio returns of high minus low factor loading portfolios, for different size and book‐to‐market groups. The Fama‐French model predicts that these regression intercepts should be zero while the characteristics model predicts that they should be negative. Generally, despite the short sample period employed, our findings support a risk‐factor interpretation as opposed to a characteristics interpretation. This is particularly so for the HML loading‐based test portfolios. More specifically, we find that: the majority of test portfolios tend to reveal higher returns for higher loadings (while controlling for book‐to‐market and size characteristics); the majority of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are statistically insignificant; for the characteristic‐balanced portfolios, very few of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are significant.

We analyze trading activity accompanying equities’ switches from “growth” (low book‐tomarket ratios (BMRs)) to “value” (high BMRs), and vice versa. We find that a large BMR increase, that is a shift from growth to value, is accompanied by a strongly negative small order imbalance (OIB). Large OIB exhibits weaker patterns across stocks that experience large changes in book/market. The evidence indicates that growth‐to‐value shifts are more strongly related to small traders than large ones. The interaction of BMRs with order flows plays a crucial role in return predictability. Specifically, the predictive ability of BMRs for future returns is significantly enhanced for those stocks that have experienced book/market increases as well as high levels of net selling by way of small orders.

We examine the incremental cross-sectional role of several common risk factors related to size, book-to-market, and momentum in size-and-momentum-sorted portfolios. Unlike the existing literature, which focuses on the conditional mean specification only, we evaluate the common risk factors’ incremental explanatory power in the cross-sectional characterization of both average return and conditional volatility. We also investigate the role of ex-ante market risk in the cross-section. The empirical results demonstrate that the size-and-momentum-based risk factors explain a significant portion of the cross-sectional average returns and cross-sectional conditional volatility of the benchmark equity portfolios. We find that the Fama–French (1993) factors and the ex-ante market risk are priced in the cross-sectional conditional volatility. We conclude that the size-and-momentum-based factors provide a source of risk that is independent of the Fama–French factors as well as ex-post and ex-ante market risk. Our results bolster the risk-based explanation of the size and momentum effects.

This study is the first to examine the role of idiosyncratic risk in the pricing of European real estate equities. The capital asset pricing model predicts that in equilibrium, investors should hold the market portfolio. As a result, investors should only be rewarded for carrying undiversifiable systematic risk and not for diversifiable idiosyncratic risk. The study is adding to the growing body of countering studies by first examining time trends of idiosyncratic risk and subsequently the pricing of idiosyncratic risk in European real estate equities. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The study analyses 293 real estate equities from 16 European capital markets over the 1991-2011 period. The framework of Fama and MacBeth is employed. Regressions of the cross-section of expected equity excess returns on idiosyncratic risk and other firm characteristics such as beta, size, book-to-market equity (BE/ME), momentum, liquidity and co-skewness are performed. Due to recent evidence on the conditional pricing of European real estate equities, the pricing is also investigated using the conditional framework of Pettengill et al. Either realised or expected idiosyncratic volatility forecasted using a set of exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models are employed.

The initial analysis of time trends in idiosyncratic risk reveals that while the early 1990s are characterised by both high total and idiosyncratic volatility, a strong downward trend emerged in 1992 which was only interrupted by the burst of the dotcom bubble and the 9/11 attacks along with the global financial and economic crisis. The largest part of total volatility is idiosyncratic and therefore firm-specific in nature. Simple cross-correlations indicate that high beta, small size, high BE/ME, low momentum, low liquidity and high co-skewness equities have higher idiosyncratic risk. While size and BE/ME are priced unconditionally from 1991 to 2011, both measures of idiosyncratic risk fail to achieve significance at reasonable levels. However, once conditioned on the general equity market or real estate equity market, a strong positive relationship between idiosyncratic risk and expected returns emerges in up-markets, while the opposite relationship exists in down-markets. The relationship is robust to firm-specific factors and a series of robustness checks.

The results show that ignoring the conditional relationship between idiosyncratic risk and returns might result in the false realisation that idiosyncratic risk does not matter in the pricing of risky (real estate) assets.

This study is the first to examine the role of idiosyncratic risk in the pricing of European real estate equities. The study reveals differences in the pricing of European real estate equities and US REITs. The study highlights that ignoring the conditional relationship between idiosyncratic risk and returns might result in the false realisation that idiosyncratic risk does not matter in the pricing of risky assets.

The purpose of this paper is, to study macroeconomic risk factors driving the expected stock returns of listed private equity (LPE). The authors use LPE indices divided into different styles and regions from January 2004 to December 2016 and a set of country stock indices to estimate the macroeconomic risk profiles and corresponding risk premiums. Using a seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) model to estimate factor sensitivities, the authors document that LPE indices exhibit stock market βs that are greater than 1. A one-factor asset pricing model using world stock market returns as the only possible risk factor is rejected on the basis of generalized method of moments (GMM) orthogonality conditions. In contrast, using the change in a currency basket, the G-7 industrial production, the G-7 term spread, the G-7 inflation rate and a recently proposed indicator of economic policy uncertainty as additional risk factors, this multifactor model is able to price a cross-section of expected LPE returns. The risk-return profile of LPE differs from country equity indices. Consequently, LPE should be treated as a separate asset class.

Following Ferson and Harvey (1994), the authors use an unconditional asset pricing model to capture the structure of returns across LPE. The authors use 11 LPE indices divided into different styles and regions from January 2004 to December 2016, and a set of country stock indices as spanning assets to estimate the macroeconomic risk profiles and corresponding risk premiums.

Using a seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) model to estimate factor sensitivities, the authors document that LPE indices exhibit stock market ßs that are greater than 1. The authors estimate a one-factor asset pricing model using world stock market returns as the only possible risk factor by GMM. This model is rejected on the basis of the GMM orthogonality conditions. By contrast, a multifactor model built on the change in a currency basket, the G-7 industrial production, the G-7 term spread, the G-7 inflation rate and a recently proposed indicator of global economic policy uncertainty as additional risk factors is able to price a cross-section of expected LPE returns.

Given data availability, the authors’ sample is strongly influenced by the financial crisis and its aftermath.

Information about the risk profile of LPE is important for asset allocation decisions. In particular, it may help to optimally react to contemporaneous changes in economy-wide risk factors.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first LPE study which investigates whether a set of macroeconomic factors is actually priced and, therefore, associated with a non-zero risk premium in the cross-section of returns.

This paper aims to examine the nexus between the pricing of market-wide volatility risk and distress risk in the cross-section of portfolio returns for the 1990-2011 time period. The author expands upon prior research by constructing an ex post factor that mimics aggregate volatility risk based on the new VIX index of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, termed FVIX, as well as focuses on volatility risk in crisis versus non-crisis time periods.

The author investigates the relationship between volatility and distress risk using several techniques in the empirical finance literature. Specifically, the author investigates the behavior of correlations between risk factors as well as the correlations between factor loadings when using the Fama and French research portfolios as our test assets for different time periods. Additionally, the author examines the variation in the volatility factor loadings across the size- and value-sorted portfolios and assesses whether augmenting conventional pricing models with a volatility factor leads to a higher goodness-of-fit in pricing the 25 size- and value-sorted portfolios.

The author’s results suggest that factor volatilities are high during periods of market turmoil. In addition, the author presents evidence indicating that a factor mimicking innovation in volatility (based on the new VIX) is correlated with the market and momentum factors, while exhibiting the uncorrelated behavior with respect to the size, value and liquidity factors when using data from 1990 through 2011. In this paper, the author finds that the aggregate volatility factor’s correlation with the market and momentum factors increases during crisis periods. In periods of relative market tranquility, correlations decrease significantly. In examining multivariate factor loadings for the test assets, the results provide no clear pattern with regard to the variation of the volatility loadings across the book-to-market and size dimensions. Furthermore, the author finds that conventional pricing models are comparable to FVIX-augmented pricing models, in terms of goodness-of-fit, when pricing the 25 Fama-French size- and value-sorted portfolios. Additionally, when using the FVIX volatility factor to proxy for aggregate volatility risk, the coefficients are never significant statistically, thus revealing that innovations in aggregate volatility based on the new VIX index do not constitute a priced risk factor in the cross-section of returns.

The author’ finding indicates an absence of strong variation of the volatility factor loadings across the Fama-French research portfolios. In particular, the asset pricing results cast doubt on whether a factor mimicking innovations in aggregate volatility based on the new VIX index is priced. In agreement with prior research, the author believes that the inseparability of volatility and jump risk in the VIX can be a possible explanation of the current findings in this paper.

The main purpose of this study is to examine whether macroeconomic variables could subsume the size and book‐to‐market (BM) anomalies for longer‐return intervals using Tokyo Stock Exchange‐listed stocks.

The Fama‐MacBeth cross‐sectional regressions of various models over time‐intervals ranging from one month to one year are performed.

The empirical results show that most macroeconomic variables explain short‐term returns within six months, with the industrial production as the only variable that persistently explains returns of all horizons ranging from one month to one year. Firm size does bear significant risk premium, but its significance diminishes for return‐intervals beyond three months when macroeconomic variables are included in the regression. BM is the only variable that significantly accounts for the cross‐section of stock returns for all horizons, regardless of the inclusion of macroeconomic variables.

These empirical findings suggest that stock returns are determined by both rational factors such as macroeconomic variables and behavioral factors such as BM.

The findings suggest that potential trading strategies indeed can be formed to exploit the persistent predictability, especially the BM regularity.

This paper is the first study that examines the competing explanatory power of various asset‐pricing models over different investment horizons.