Search results

The equity premium of the S&P 500 index is explained in this paper by several variables that can be grouped into fundamental, behavioral, and macroeconomic factors. We hypothesize that the statistical significance of these variables changes across economic regimes. The three regimes we consider are the low‐volatility, medium‐volatility, and high‐volatility regimes in contrast to previous studies that do not differentiate across economic regimes. By using the three‐state Markov switching regime econometric methodology, we confirm that the statistical significance of the independent variables representing fundamentals, macroeconomic conditions, and a behavioral variable changes across economic regimes. Our findings offer an improved understanding of what moves the equity premium across economic regimes than what we can learn from single‐equation estimation. Our results also confirm the significance of momentum as a behavioral variable across all economic regimes

The purpose of this paper is to dissect the dynamic linkages between foreign equity flows, exchange rates and equity returns in the Philippines.

Using a parsimonious SVARX‐GARCH model and unique daily equity flow data, this research models the relationship between net equity flows, conditional variance of stock returns and conditional variance of exchange rates.

The authors find several noteworthy results, which are unique to this study and several results that confirm existing literature. Much of existing literature on foreign equity flows into emerging economies find that foreign equity investors are trend chasers and equity flows are auto correlated. The authors confirm these finding in the Philippines and document two new and important findings. First, it was found that unexpected increases in foreign equity flows to the Philippines increases the conditional volatility of the Filipino stock market significantly over the next two weeks of trading. The second major finding is that unexpected shocks to foreign equity flows sharply increases the conditional variance of the USD/PHP exchange rate over the next two to three weeks of trading.

Taken together, the results indicate that foreign equity investment, while providing many benefits for small open economies such as the Philippines, does in the short run increase the conditional variance of both the equity market and exchange rates. Policy makers must weigh the benefits of increased risk sharing and the potential for lower costs of capital with the short‐run potential for increase swings in asset prices.

This paper is one of the only studies of its kind to test the impact of foreign equity flows on the conditional volatility of returns and exchange rates.

The authors consider a variety of cryptocurrency and equity risk factors as potential forces that drive cryptocurrency returns and carry risk premiums. In a cross-section of 2,000 biggest cryptocurrencies during 2014–2020, only downside market risk, cryptocurrency size and cryptocurrency policy uncertainty factors are systematically priced with significant premiums. Cryptocurrencies, which have greater exposures to these factors, yield higher returns subsequently. Equity market risk, particularly equity downside market risk, appears to be more important than cryptocurrency market risk, suggesting greater linkages between cryptocurrency and equity markets than we used to think. Global and the US equity factors are more relevant for the cryptocurrency market than local factors from other markets. However, there is no evidence that exposure to momentum, volatility and Fama–French factors is compensated by higher returns.

The commodity and equity derivatives have a close resemblance between them in trade practices and mechanisms, which makes it easy for the investors to combine these two assets classes for building up their portfolio. The diversification of investment among asset classes builds some relation between them. The integration of market within a country is necessary to bring in a smooth and balanced economic growth. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the spillover between the equity and commodity futures markets which will be helpful not only for the investors but also for the policy makers, producers and the regulators.

To examine the spillover between the equity and commodity market, the major benchmarking indices of these markets, namely COMDEX of MCX, Dhaanya of NCDEX and NIFTY 50 of NSE, were chosen. NIFTY 50 index was chosen as representative of equity market due to its composition of most active constituent stocks than any other broad market index of Indian stock market. As the commodity market indices are not been traded, their constituent commodities were taken for the study. Thus, 11 MCX-COMDEX constituents such as Gold, Silver, Copper, Zinc, Aluminum, Nickel, Lead, Crude oil, Natural gas, Kapaskhali and Mentha oil and eight NCDEX-Dhaanya constituents such as Castor seed, Chana, Cotton seed oilcake, Jeera, Mustard seed, Refined soy oil, Turmeric and Wheat futures prices were taken against the NIFTY 50 futures prices with daily trading data for ten years starting from January 1, 2006 till December 31, 2015 to analyze their spillover effect. The return series data were used to test the spillover between equity and commodity futures market as it gives the crux of investors’ diversification through the Vector Autoregression (VAR) model and verified with Impulse Response Function by testing the null hypothesis, H₀, that there is no return spillover between the equity and commodity futures market.

The investors move from equity to commodity when there is a threat in equity market and vice versa, thereby diversify their risk for those commodities which are vulnerable to global and domestic pressures in the economy. Investigating the spillover between equity and commodity market gives an insight of market integration effect. A nation can achieve its economic growth easily when its markets are integrated.

The commodity indices are still notional indices in the market; therefore, individual constituent commodities of commodities indices were considered with the benchmarking equity futures index, which is one of the limitations of the study.

The integration of market within a country is necessary to bring in a smooth and balanced economic growth.

Most of the past studies dealt only with few commodities and equities and not with the broad-based benchmarking indices. This paves way for enquiry into the commodity and equity markets integration with the major constituent commodities traded in the economy. Hence, this paper looks into the presence of spillover between the equity and commodity markets. The VAR model is verified with the impulse response function which explains the reaction of any dynamic system in response to a pulse change in another. The impulse response function is presented graphically for easy and better understanding.

Correlation coefficients measuring the historical relationships of returns on commercial property and both equities and conventional gilts appear to be low. Conversely, the correlation between gilts and equities appears to be relatively high. This implies that property provides diversification benefits to a mixed asset portfolio dominated by equities and gilts. However, there is some debate as to the reliability of these correlations and property’s diversification benefits. In this paper we use Granger causality tests and cointegration techniques to demonstrate that there is no long‐run relationship between property returns and those of either gilts or equities. This confirms the diversification benefits of including property in a mixed asset portfolio.

This paper examines the implications of standard barter models of market equilibrium for financial security returns in New Zealand. The key question addressed is: does the ‘equity premium puzzle’ of Mehra and Prescott (1985) found in the U.S. also hold in ?ew Zealand? To examine the existence of the equity premium puzzle, quarterly financial security returns and consumption data are examined from 1965 to 1997 to calibrate parameters in the Consumption Based Asset Pricing Model. Unlike much of the existing international evidence, this paper corrects for durable goods consumption following the assumptions of the model that all consumption be consumed in a given period. Numerical analyses indicate that the class of models examined are unable to generate equity premia consistent with historical estimates of the equity premium in New Zealand. Due to small sample variability however, while this discrepancy is material in size, the result is not statistically significant.

This paper uniquely aims to triangulate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, government financial intervention (GFI) policies and power distance (PD) culture on returns of equity indices during the COVID-19 epidemic in the world's equity markets.

The research employs panel data regression analysis using 1,937 observations from 19 developed and 42 developing countries. The data employed contain daily registered COVID-19 cases, global equity market index prices, financial intervention policies introduced by governments and Hofstede's cultural dimension measure of PD.

The authors find that investors certainly react negatively to the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported, that GFI policies indeed reinforce investors' expectations of policymakers' dedication to stabilize the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic and that equity investors in high PD cultures overreact to GFI news, resulting in more positive stock returns. The authors discover a difference between developed and developing countries in terms of the effect of GFI policies and PD on equity returns.

Results suggest that investors react negatively to the daily registered COVID-19 cases. The authors find that financial intervention policies introduced by governments reinforce investors' outlooks of policymakers' commitment to stabilize local stock markets during the coronavirus pandemic. The results confirm that equity market investors in PD cultures overreact to financial intervention news, thus resulting in more positive stock returns.

The paper provides three original contributions. First, it helps us to understand the single effect of the COVID-19 and financial intervention policies introduced by governments on returns of the global equity market. Second, it examines the possibility of a two-way joint effect between the COVID-19 and financial intervention policies introduced by governments and the COVID-19 and differences in countries characterized by a PD culture concerning stock market returns. Third, it investigates the possibility of a three-way interaction effect between the COVID-19 contagion, financial intervention policies introduced by governments and culture on returns of equity markets.

The authors' findings are valuable to researchers, investors and policymakers. Culture and finance scholars can now observe the role of Brown et al.'s (1988) uncertain-information hypothesis with reference to the effect of the COVID-19 and financial interventions policies introduced by governments on returns of equity markets. This is because the authors' findings underline that since investors' uncertainty declines with daily registered numbers of COVID-19 cases, the introduction of GFI policies function as a neutralizing device to re-establish investors' expectations to equilibrium. Consequently, stock market returns follow a random walk that is free from the negative effect of the COVID-19. The authors' work is likely to advise equity investors and portfolio managers about the extent to which major exogenous economic events such the outbreak of global diseases, financial interventions policies introduced by governments and differences in countries' PD culture can individually and jointly influence the return of the world's equity markets. Investors and portfolio managers can employ the authors' results as a guideline to adjust their investment strategy based on their investment decision strategy during global pandemics. Policymakers aiming to introduce financial intervention policies to stabilize their stock market returns during global pandemics can benefit from our results. They can observe the full effect of such policies during the current COVID-19, and subsequently be better prepared to choose the most effective form of financial intervention policies when the next pandemic strikes, hopefully never.

Recent studies in the field of behavioral finance have highlighted the importance of investor sentiment in the return-generating process for general equities. By employing an asset pricing framework, this paper aims to evaluate the performance of European real estate equities, based on their degree of sentiment sensitivity.

Using a pan-European data set, we classify all real estate equities according to their sentiment sensitivity, which is measured relative to the Economic Sentiment Indicator (ESI) of the European Commission. Based on their individual sentiment responsiveness, we form both a high- and low-sensitivity portfolio, whose returns are included in the difference test of the liquidity-augmented asset pricing model. In this context, we analyze the performance of sentiment-sensitive and sentiment-insensitive real estate equities with a risk-adjusted perspective over the period July 1995 to June 2012.

While high-sensitivity real estate equities yield significantly higher raw returns than those with low-sensitivity, we find no evidence of risk-adjusted outperformance. This indicates that allegedly sentiment-driven return behavior is in fact merely compensation for taking higher fundamental risks. In this context, we find that sentiment-sensitive real estate equities are exposed to significantly higher market risks than sentiment-insensitive ones. Based on these findings, we conclude that a sentiment-based investment strategy, consisting of a long-position in the high-sensitivity portfolio and a short-position in the low-sensitivity one, does not generate a risk-adjusted profit.

Although this study sheds some light on investor sentiment in European real estate stock markets, further research could usefully concentrate on alternative sentiment proxies.

This is the first study to disentangle the relationship between investor sentiment and European real estate stock returns.

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.