Search results

This study examines the five-factor model of Fama and French (2015) on the French stock market by comparing it to the Fama and French (1993)’s base model. The new Fama and French five-factor model directed at capturing two new factors, profitability and investment in addition to the market, size and book to market premiums. The pricing models are tested using a time-series regression and the Fama and Macbeth (1973) methodology. The regularities in the factor’s behavior related to market conditions and to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe are also examined. The findings of Fama and French (2015) for the US market are confirmed on the Paris Bourse. The results show that both models help to explain some of the stock returns. However, the five-factor model is better since it has a marginal improvement over the widely used three-factor model of Fama and French (1993). In addition, the investment risk premium seems to be better priced in the French stock market than the profitability factor. The results are robust to the Fama and Macbeth (1973) methodology. Moreover, profitability and investment premiums are not affected by market conditions and the European sovereign debt crisis.

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.

Previous studies have shown that stock returns bear a premium for downside risk versus upside potential. We develop a new risk measure which scales the traditional CAPM beta by the ratio of the upside beta to the downside beta, thereby incorporating the effects of both upside potential and downside risk. This “modified” beta has substantial explanatory power in standard asset pricing tests, outperforming existing measures, and it is robust to various alternative modeling and estimation techniques.

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.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues have recently received much attention. This research investigates the daily performance of socially responsible investment (SRI). To do that, the authors construct portfolios consisting of the SRI, non-SRI, and matched non-SRI. The portfolios can be compared with the market benchmark based on α adjusted asset pricing models. Due to using high-frequency data, the authors use ARCH/GARCH to deal with time-varying volatility. Moreover, the authors also utilized Fama–MacBeth pooled regression to confront the SRI stocks and the non-SRI counterpart. In sum, the findings of this study confirm the superior performance of the value-weighted (VW) SRI portfolio against the market. On a head-to-head basis, the SRI yields a higher return than the non-SRI. The results are robust in the quarterly analysis. It is essential for investors that put their money in socially responsible (SR) portfolios to either promote sustainable development or chase a return on it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recent studies suggested the ratio of option to stock volume reflected the private information. Informed traders were drawn to the options market for its leverage effect and relatively low transaction costs. Informed traders use different intervals of option moneyness to execute their strategies. The question is which types of option moneyness were traded by informed traders and what information was reflected in the market. In this study, the authors focused on this question and constructed a method for capturing the activity of informed traders in the options and stock markets.

The authors constructed the daily measure, moneyness option trading volume to stock trading volume ratio (MOS), to capture the activity of informed traders in the market. The authors formed quintile portfolios sorted with respect to the moneyness option to stock trading volume ratio and provided the capital asset pricing model and Fama–French five-factor alphas. To determine whether MOS had predictive ability on future stock returns after controlling for company characteristic effects, the authors formed double-sorted portfolios and performed Fama–Macbeth regressions.

The authors found that the firms in the lowest moneyness option trading volume to stock trading volume ratio for put quintile outperform the highest quintile by 0.698% per week (approximately 36% per year). The firms in the highest moneyness option trading volume to stock trading volume ratio for call quintile outperform the lowest quintile by 0.575% per week (approximately 30% per year).

The authors first propose the measures, moneyness option trading volume to stock trading volume ratio, that combined with the trading volume and option moneyness. The authors provide evidence that the measures have the predictive ability to the future stock returns.

Investors are inattentive to continuous information as opposed to discrete information, resulting in underreaction to continuous information. This paper aims to examine if the well-documented return predictability of the strategies based on the ratio of short-term to long-term moving averages can be enhanced by conditioning on information discreteness. Anchoring bias has been the popular explanation for the source of underreaction in the context of moving averages-based strategies. This paper proposes and studies another possible source based on investor inattention that can potentially result in superior performance of these strategies.

The paper uses portfolio sorting as well as Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions. For examining the role of information discreteness in the return predictability of the moving average ratio, the sample stocks are double-sorted based on the moving average ratio and information discreteness measure. The returns to these portfolios are computed using standard approaches in the literature. The regression approach controls for various well-known return predictors.

This study finds that the equally-weighted monthly returns to the long-short moving average ratio quintile portfolios increase monotonically from 0.54% for the discrete information portfolio to 1.37% for the continuous information portfolio over the 3-month holding period. This study observes a similar pattern in risk-adjusted returns, value-weighted portfolios, non-January returns, large and small stocks, for alternative holding periods and the ratio of 50-day to 200-day moving average. The results are robust to control for well-known return predictors in cross-sectional regressions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to document the significant role of investor inattention to continuous information in the return predictability of strategies based on the moving average ratios. There are many underreaction anomalies that have been reported in the literature, and the paper's results can be extended to those anomalies in subsequent research.

The findings of this paper have important practical implications. Strategies based on moving averages are an extremely popular component of a technical analyst's toolkit. Their profitability has been well-documented in the prior literature that attributes the performance to investors' anchoring bias. This paper offers a readily implementable approach to enhancing the performance of these strategies by conditioning on a straightforward measure of information discreteness. In doing so, this study extends the literature on the role of investor inattention to continuous information in anomaly profits.

While there is considerable literature on technical analysis, and especially on the performance of moving averages-based strategies, the novelty of this paper is the analysis of the role of information discreteness in strategy performance. Not only does the paper document robust evidence, but the findings suggest that the investor’s inattention to continuous information is a more dominant source of underreaction compared to anchoring. This is an important result, given that anchoring has so far been considered the source of return predictability in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of corruption on stock returns in the USA. In particular, this study examines the relationship between corruption in a state (i.e. local corruption) and stock returns of firms headquartered in that state (i.e. local returns).

This paper uses the Fama–MacBeth two-step regressions. In the first step, the authors estimate the coefficients on the market, size, value and momentum factors for individual stocks. In the second step, they use those coefficients along with the corruption score of the state where stocks are headquartered to explain stock returns.

This paper finds that corruption in a state adversely affects stock returns of firms headquartered in that state. It further documents that the effect of corruption on stock returns is limited to geographically concentrated firms.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to document the effect of state-level corruption on individual stock returns in the USA using the Fama–MacBeth regressions. This study contributes to the literature by documenting the effect of local corruption on local stock returns in a low corruption country.