Search results

This study aims to investigate the variation in overvaluation proxies and volatility across industry sectors and time.

Using industry sector data from the S&P Capital IQ database, this study applies traditional cross-sectional regressions to investigate the relationship between overvaluation and volatility over the 2001–2020 time period.

This study finds that the most volatile industry sectors generally do not coincide with overvalued industry sectors in the cross-section, implying that there are limitations to price-multiple methods for forecasting future volatility. Rather, this study finds that historical volatility significantly increases the goodness-of-fit when modeling volatility in the cross section of industry sectors. The findings of this study imply that firms should increase disclosures and transparency about corporate practices to decrease downside risk that stems from bad news. In addition, the findings underline the consistency between market efficiency and high levels of volatility in periods of significant uncertainty.

This study proposes a novel approach to examining the cross section of volatility across time for industry sectors.

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.

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.

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.

The authors aim to understand the driving forces behind the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in the Korean stock market. The authors study the Korean stock market because previous works report a strong idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in Korea, and the market for the exchange-traded funds (ETFs) including low volatility ETFs has experienced drastic growth in Korea.

Using common stocks listed either on KOSPI or KOSDAQ over the period 1997–2016, the authors estimate idiosyncratic volatility using the Fama–French three-factor model. In addition, based on prior literature, the authors use turnover as a proxy for overvaluation. The authors then study the role of turnover in understanding the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in Korea.

The authors find that turnover is highly associated with idiosyncratic volatility. Turnover is extremely large among firms with high idiosyncratic volatility and the puzzle disappears after we control for turnover, meaning that turnover subsumes the explanatory power of idiosyncratic volatility for equity returns. The authors also find underperformance of stocks with high turnover and high idiosyncratic volatility exclusively during earnings announcement periods. Overall, our finding implies that the puzzle arises since high idiosyncratic volatility stocks due to high turnover are overvalued and experience correction afterwards.

Literature has suggested explanations based on lottery preferences of investors and market frictions behind the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle. What makes our study distinct from previous work is that we find the role of turnover in understanding the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle using turnover measure as a proxy for overvaluation in the Korean stock market.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of volatility risk on stock return predictability specified on two global financial crises: the dot-com bubble and recent financial crisis.

Using a broad sample of stock options traded on the American Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board Options Exchange from January 2001 to December 2010, the effect of different idiosyncratic volatility forecasting measures are examined on future stock returns in four different periods (Bear and Bull markets).

First, the authors find clear and robust empirical evidence that the implied idiosyncratic volatility is the best stock return predictor for every sub-period both in Bear and Bull markets. Second, the cross-section firm-specific characteristics are important when it comes to stock returns forecasts, as the latter have mixed positive and negative effects on Bear and Bull markets. Third, the authors provide evidence that short selling constraints impact negatively on stock returns for only a Bull market and that liquidity is meaningless for both Bear and Bull markets after the recent financial crisis.

These results would be helpful to disclose more information on the best idiosyncratic volatility measure to be implemented in global financial crises.

This study empirically analyses the effect of different idiosyncratic volatility measures for a period that involves both the dotcom bubble and the recent financial crisis in four different periods (Bear and Bull markets) and contributes the existing literature on volatility measures, volatility risk and stock return predictability in global financial crises.

High levels of turnover in financial markets are consistent with the notion that trading, like gambling, yields direct utility to some agents. The purpose of this paper is to show that the presence of these agents attenuates covariance risk pricing and volatility, and implies a negative relation between volume and future returns. Since psychological literature indicates that the desirability of a gamble arises from the ex ante volatility of the outcome, the authors propose that agents derive greater utility from trading more volatile stocks. These stocks earn lower average returns in equilibrium, although the risk premium on the market portfolio is positive. The authors then consider a dynamic setting where agents’ utility from trading increases when they make positive profits in earlier rounds (e.g. due to an endowment effect). This leads to “bubbles,” i.e. disproportionate jumps in asset returns as a function of past prices, higher volume in up markets relative to down markets, as well as a leverage effect, wherein down markets are followed by higher volatility than up markets.

Analytical.

The presence of gamblers attenuates covariance risk pricing and volatility, and implies a negative relation between volume and future returns. If gamblers prefer more volatile stocks, these stocks earn lower average returns in equilibrium. If agents’ utility from trading increases when they make positive profits in earlier rounds (e.g. to an endowment effect), this leads to higher volume and lower volatility in up markets relative to down markets.

No paper has previously modeled agents who derive direct utility from trading.

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the controversial issue of whether stock returns and idiosyncratic risks are related positively or negatively in case of Singaporean ethically poor screened stocks.

To achieve the major objectives of this paper, it uses a multiple regression to explore the relationship between expected stock returns and idiosyncratic risk. The paper replicates the Lee and Faff’s (2009) three-factor capital asset-pricing model (CAPM) model in creating the six size/book-to-market portfolios from which it constructs the small minus big (SMB) and high minus low (HML) portfolios that capture the size and book-to-market equity factors, respectively.

The basic finding of the paper is that there is a strong relation between idiosyncratic risk and the expected stock returns. In more details, we observe that the portfolio of stocks with the highest idiosyncratic volatility generates higher average returns (4.36 per cent) than the portfolio of stocks with the lowest idiosyncratic volatility (0.79 per cent) over the sample period. The paper observes that the stock’s idiosyncratic volatility is inversely correlated with the size of the underlying firm. Moreover, there is a pattern of relationships nearer the periods of financial crises: Asian and global financial crises.

This paper uses only a three-factor model on a single country. So it cannot be generalized to a multi-country level in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, as the structure of each member country is different.

This paper provides guidelines for policymakers and foreign investors in Singapore about the relationship. This research can also be extended to other ASEAN countries to understand this puzzle.

Ethically sensitive and faithful investors with small investment can benefit from the findings of this paper.

The work reported in this paper is original, unpublished and is also not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

The purpose of our study is to explore the “idiosyncratic volatility puzzle” in Chinese stock market from the perspective of investors' heterogeneous beliefs. To delve into the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and investors' heterogeneous beliefs, and uncover the ability of heterogeneous beliefs, as well as to explain the “idiosyncratic volatility puzzle”, we construct our study as follows.

Our study adopts the unexpected trading volume as proxies of heterogeneity, the residual of Fama–French three-factor model as proxies of idiosyncratic volatility. Portfolio strategies and Fama–MacBeth regression are used to investigate the relationship between the two proxies and stock returns in Chinese A-share market.

Investors' heterogeneous beliefs, as an intermediary variable, are positively correlated with idiosyncratic volatility. Meanwhile, it could better demonstrate the negative correlation between the idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns. It is one of the economic mechanisms linking idiosyncratic volatility to subsequent stock returns, which can account for 11.28% of the puzzle.

The findings indicate that idiosyncratic volatility is significantly and positively correlated with heterogeneous beliefs and that heterogeneous beliefs are effective intervening variables to explain the “idiosyncratic volatility puzzle”.