Search results
1 – 10 of over 6000Philip Gharghori, Howard Chan and Robert Faff
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…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
Asgar Ali, K.N. Badhani and Ashish Kumar
This study aims to investigate the risk-return trade-off in the Indian equity market at both the aggregate equity market level and in the cross-sections of stock return using…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate the risk-return trade-off in the Indian equity market at both the aggregate equity market level and in the cross-sections of stock return using alternative risk measures.
Design/methodology/approach
The study uses weekly and monthly data of 3,085 Bombay Stock Exchange-listed stocks spanning over 20 years from January 2000 to December 2019. The study evaluates the risk-return trade-off at the aggregate equity market level using the value-weighted and the equal-weighted broader portfolios. Eight different risk proxies belonging to the conventional, downside and extreme risk categories are considered to analyse the cross-sectional risk-return relationship.
Findings
The results show a positive equity premium on the value-weighted portfolio; however, the equal-weighted portfolio of these stocks shows an average return lower than the return on the 91-day Treasury Bills. The inverted size premium mainly causes this anomaly in the Indian equity market as the small stocks have lower returns than big stocks. The study presents a strong negative risk-return relationship across different risk proxies. However, under the subsample of more liquid stocks, the low-risk anomaly regarding other risk proxies becomes moderate except the beta-anomaly. This anomalous relationship seems to be caused by small and less liquid stocks having low institutional ownership and higher short-selling constraints.
Practical implications
The findings have important implications for investors, managers and practitioners. Investors can incorporate the effects of different highlighted anomalies in their investment strategies to fetch higher returns. Managers can also use these findings in their capital budgeting decisions, resource allocations and other diverse range of direct and indirect decisions, particularly in emerging markets such as India. The findings provide insights to practitioners while valuing the firms.
Originality/value
The study is among the earlier attempts to examine the risk-return trade-off in an emerging equity market at both the aggregate equity market level and in the cross-sections of stock returns using alternative measures of risk and expected returns.
Details
Keywords
The recent development of the European debt sovereign crisis showed that sovereign debt is not “risk free.” The traditional index bond management used during the last two decades…
Abstract
Introduction
The recent development of the European debt sovereign crisis showed that sovereign debt is not “risk free.” The traditional index bond management used during the last two decades such as the market-capitalization weighting scheme has been severely called into question. In order to overcome these drawbacks, alternative weighting schemes have recently prompted attention, both from academic researchers and from market practitioners. One of the key developments was the introduction of passive funds using economic fundamental indicators.
Purpose
In this chapter, the authors introduced models with economic drivers with an aim of investigating whether the fundamental approaches outperformed the other models on risk-adjusted returns and on other terms.
Methodology
The authors did this by constructing five portfolios composed of the Eurozone sovereigns bonds. The models are the Market-Capitalization RP, GDP model RP, Ratings RP model, Fundamental-Ranking RP, and Fundamental-Weighted RP models. These models were created exclusively for this chapter. Both Fundamental models are using a range of 10 country fundamentals. A variation from other studies is that this dissertation applied the risk parity concept which is an allocation technique that aims to equalize risk across different assets. This concept has been applied by assuming the credit default swap as proxy for sovereign credit risk. The models were run using the Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG) method as the optimization model, together with the Lagrange Multipliers as techniques and the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions. This led to the comparison of all the models mentioned above in terms of performance, risk-adjusted returns, concentration, and weighted average ratings.
Findings
By analyzing the whole period between 2006 and 2014, it was found that both the fundamental models gave very appealing results in terms of risk-adjusted returns. The best results were returned by the Fundamental-Ranking RP model followed by the Fundamental-Weighting RP model. However, better results for the mixed performance and risk-adjusted returns were achieved on a yearly basis and when sub-dividing the whole period in three equal periods. Moreover, the authors concluded that over the long term, the fundamental bond indexing triumphed over the other approaches by offering superior return and risk characteristics. Thus, one can use the fundamental indexation as an alternative to other traditional models.
Details
Keywords
Peter Dadalt, Sirapat Polwitoon and Ali Zadeh
We revisit the performance of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) in Japan against the backdrop of the Tokyo Stock Exchange's historical nine-year run up from 1980 to 1989, with the…
Abstract
We revisit the performance of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) in Japan against the backdrop of the Tokyo Stock Exchange's historical nine-year run up from 1980 to 1989, with the time period chosen for the purpose of comparison to previous studies. We analyze the long-run performance of 427 issues or 387 Japanese firms that conducted SEOs from 1980–1990. Initial results indicate that SEOs firms underperform standard benchmarks over subsequent 3- and 5-year periods after issuing. The results from value-weighted portfolios, however, show that SEOs outperform three out of five benchmarks. The results from the Fama-French three factor model show that all of the 16 SEO portfolios (formed by size and book-to-market quartiles) have positively significant intercepts, and most loadings are significant. The size loadings from time series three-factor model of value-weighted portfolio show that SEO sample firm returns exhibit characteristics of large firms as opposed to those of small firms under equally weighted portfolios. Our results support the arguments that (1) the returns of issuing firms are not idiosyncratic, but rather covary with the common factors of nonissuing firms and that (2) the underperformance of SEOs is sensitive to the precise test specifications.
Details
Keywords
Stephen Lee and Simon Stevenson
In estimating the inputs into the modern portfolio theory (MPT) portfolio optimisation problem, it is usual to use equal weighted historic data. Equal weighting of the data…
Abstract
In estimating the inputs into the modern portfolio theory (MPT) portfolio optimisation problem, it is usual to use equal weighted historic data. Equal weighting of the data, however, does not take account of the current state of the market. Consequently this approach is unlikely to perform well in any subsequent period as the data is still reflecting market conditions that are no longer valid. The need for some return weighting scheme that gives greater weight to the most recent data would seem desirable. Therefore, this study uses returns data which are weighted to give greater weight to the most recent observations to see if such a weighting scheme can offer improved ex ante performance over that based on unweighted data.
Details
Keywords
Rasha Tawfiq Abadi and Florinda Silva
This study aims to investigate the performance of fundamental weighted portfolios (using sales, cash flows, dividends, book values and a composite of all these variables), an equal…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate the performance of fundamental weighted portfolios (using sales, cash flows, dividends, book values and a composite of all these variables), an equal weighted portfolio and a smoothed cap-weighted (CW) portfolio in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) markets. The performance of these portfolios is compared with that of a CW portfolio for the period 2005 to 2015.
Design/methodology/approach
The portfolios are formed using different concentration levels, different construction schemes and different sub-regions. The performance is assessed using a large set of risk-adjusted performance measures, including more robust measures in the context of multi-factor models, such as the Fama and French (1993) three-factor model, the Fama and French (2015) five-factor model and a seven-factor model.
Findings
The results show that the fundamental portfolios, with the exception of the sales portfolio, underperform the CW portfolio using either the traditional or more robust risk-adjusted performance measures. The underperformance of the fundamental portfolios is found to be robust using different concentration levels, different construction schemes and different sub-regions. The results also show that the equal weighted portfolio outperforms the CW portfolio using traditional risk-adjusted measures. However, after controlling for additional risk factors, this outperformance disappears.
Practical implications
The failure of fundamental indexation in the emerging markets could help the researchers and the academics to search for the best weighting method that could be used as an alternative to the CW indexation method.
Originality/value
The results of the study add evidence to the debatable propositions on the performance of fundamental portfolios in emerging markets. Furthermore, the findings may help domestic and international investors, practitioners and decision-makers to deepen their knowledge in terms of the best portfolio construction scheme in the MENA region.
Details
Keywords
Stephen Lee and Simon Stevenson
The question as to whether it is better to diversify a real estate portfolio within a property type across the regions or within a region across the property types is one of…
Abstract
Purpose
The question as to whether it is better to diversify a real estate portfolio within a property type across the regions or within a region across the property types is one of continuing interest for academics and practitioners alike. However, this study is somewhat different from the usual sector/regional analysis in that this study is designed to investigate whether a real estate fund manager can obtain a statistically significant improvement in risk/return performance from extending out of a London based portfolio into firstly the rest of the South East of England and then into the remainder of the UK, or whether the manger would be better off staying within London and diversifying across the various property types.
Design/methodology/approach
In order to examine these issues we form a number of portfolios that can be directly compared to a number of benchmark portfolios, as well as to each other. Then using the statistical tests developed by Gibbons et al. and Jobson and Korkie, we investigate whether the benefits that accrue from the differing diversification strategies are statistically significant or not.
Findings
The results show that staying within only one sector and one region (London) is undesirable in terms of risk and return compared with all three benchmark portfolios considered here. Secondly diversification on a naïve basis, or in an optimal fashion, leads to significant improvements in performance, irrespective of whether it is across different property types within London or within the same sector across the regions. Finally the results indicate that staying within London and diversifying across the various property types may offer performance comparable with regional diversification, although this conclusion largely depends on the time period and the fund manager's ability to diversify efficiently.
Originality/value
The results suggest that diversification almost always offers increased performance. Indeed a little diversification can quickly lead to levels of performance that is superior to number of benchmarks as well as performance insignificantly different from that of the most diversified portfolio that could be constructed! Consequently fund managers should be encouraged to diversify, be it across the regions or across the sectors of the UK.
Details
Keywords
Seyed Reza Tabatabaei Poudeh and Chengbo Fu
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing stock return predictability and idiosyncratic risk literature by examining the relationship between stock returns and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing stock return predictability and idiosyncratic risk literature by examining the relationship between stock returns and components derived from the decomposition of stock returns variance at the portfolio and firm levels.
Design/methodology/approach
A theoretical model is used to decompose the variance of stock returns into two volatility and two covariance terms by using a conditional Fama-French three-factor model. This study adopts portfolio analysis and Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression to examine the relationship between components of idiosyncratic risk and expected stock returns.
Findings
The portfolio analysis results show that volatility terms are negatively related to expected stock returns, and alpha risk has the most significant relationship with stock returns. On the contrary, covariance terms have positive relationships with expected stock returns at the portfolio level. Furthermore, the results of the Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression show that only alpha risk can explain variations in stock returns at the firm level. Another finding is that when volatility and covariance terms are excluded from idiosyncratic volatility, the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns becomes weak at the portfolio level and disappears at the firm level.
Originality/value
This is the first study that examines the relations between all the components of idiosyncratic risk and expected stock returns in equal-weighted and value-weighted portfolios. This research also suggests covariance terms of idiosyncratic volatility as new predictors of stock returns at the portfolio level. Moreover, this paper contributes to the idiosyncratic risk literature by examining whether all the four additional components explain all the systematic patterns included in the unconditional idiosyncratic risk.
Details
Keywords
This paper investigates the extent to which risk reduction can be achieved within the UK property market in high and low Beta portfolios. This issue is examined by making…
Abstract
This paper investigates the extent to which risk reduction can be achieved within the UK property market in high and low Beta portfolios. This issue is examined by making simulations of property portfolios of increasing size using the largest sample (392) of actual property returns that is currently available, over the period 1981 to 1996. In particular it is shown that the achievable level of risk reduction is negatively related to the level of market risk of the individual assets. Thus portfolios based on individually high market risk assets require larger numbers of properties to achieve the same level of risk reduction than low Beta risk portfolios. In addition it is shown that the number of properties needed to “track” the market is prohibitively large and unlikely to be achievable for all but the very largest UK property funds. The practical implications of this are that UK property fund performance is likely to be mainly driven by stock selection, even for the largest funds. For those fund managers who wish to track the market the costs in terms of portfolio value seem prohibitively expensive. On this basis, no UK property fund, even the largest, would follow a passive investment policy.
Details
Keywords
Kaylene Zaretzky and J. Kenton Zumwalt
Earlier research found that firms with the highest distress risk have low book‐to‐market (B/M) ratios and low returns. This paper aims to examine the robustness of those's results…
Abstract
Purpose
Earlier research found that firms with the highest distress risk have low book‐to‐market (B/M) ratios and low returns. This paper aims to examine the robustness of those's results and provide further evidence that high distress‐risk firms do not enjoy the same high returns earned by high B/M firms and that distress risk is unlikely to explain the Fama and French high‐minus‐low (HML) B/M factor.
Design/methodology/approach
A distress‐risk measure, distressed‐minus‐solvent (DMS), is calculated and a range of zero investment distress‐risk trading strategies is investigated. Value‐ and equal‐weighted portfolios are examined both with negative book‐equity firms and without. These most distressed firms have low or negative B/M values and would either not be included in the Fama and French sample or included in the low B/M portfolio.
Findings
The paper finds that the DMS factor is negative and significant, and none of the zero investment strategies earns significantly positive returns.
Research limitations/implications
The findings suggest that exposure to distress risk does not earns investors a positive risk premium. It appears that over the period examined, market inefficiencies drive the market value and returns of high distress‐risk firms.
Originality/value
The distress‐risk premium is shown to be negative and, therefore, cannot be driven by bankruptcy risk alone. The negative premium is not consistent with a financial distress explanation for the Fama and French HML factor.
Details