Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine alternative six- and seven-factor equity pricing models directed at capturing a new factor, aggregate volatility, in addition to market, size, book to market, profitability, investment premiums of the Fama and French (2015) and Fama and French’s (2018) aggregate volatility augmented model.

The models are tested using a time series regression and Fama and Macbeth’s (1973) methodology.

The authors show that both six- and seven-factor models best explain average excess returns on the French stock market. In fact, the authors outperform Fama and French’s (2018) model. The authors use sensitivity of aggregate volatility of a stock VCAC as a proxy to construct the aggregate volatility risk factor. The spanning tests suggest that Fama and French’s (1993, 2015, 2018) and Carhart’s (1997) models do not explain the aggregate volatility risk factor FVCAC. The results show that the FVCAC factor earns significant αs across the different multifactor models and even after controlling for the exposure to all the other in Fama and French’s (2018) model. The asset pricing tests show that it is systematically priced. In fact, the authors find a significant and negative (positive) relation between the aggregate volatility risk factor and the excess returns in the French stock market when it is rising (falling), in addition, periods with downward market movements tend to coincide with high volatility.

The authors contribute to the related literature in several ways. First, the authors test two new empirical six- and seven-factor model and the authors compare them to Fama and French’s (2018) model. Second, the authors give new evidence about the VCAC, using it for the first time to the authors’ knowledge, to construct a volatility risk premium.

The aim of this study is to investigate the role of efficiency in capital asset pricing. The paper explores the impact of a four-factor model that involves an efficiency factor on the returns of Nasdaq technology firms.

The paper relies on data of 147 firms from July 2007 to June 2017 to examine the impact of efficiency on stock returns. The performances of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), Fama–French three-factor model and the proposed four-factor model are evaluated based on the time series regression method. The parameters such as the GRS F-statistic and adjusted R² are used to compare the relative performances of all models.

The results show that all factors of the models are found to be valid in asset pricing. Also, the paper provides evidence that the explanatory power of the proposed four-factor model outperforms the explanatory power of the CAPM and Fama–French three-factor model.

Unlike most asset pricing studies, this paper presents a new asset pricing model by adding the efficiency factor to the Fama–French three-factor model. It is documented that the efficiency factor increases the predictive ability of stock returns. Evidence implies that investors consider efficiency as one of the main factors in pricing their assets.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the best conditional asset pricing model for the Tokyo Stock Exchange sample by utilizing long‐run daily data. It aims to investigate whether there are any other firm‐specific variables that can explain abnormal returns of the estimated asset pricing model.

The individual firm sample was used to conduct various cross‐sectional tests of conditional asset pricing models, at the same time as using test portfolios in order to confirm the mean variance efficiency of basic unconditional models.

The paper's multifactor models in unconditional forms are rejected, with the exception of the five‐factor model. Further, the five‐factor model is better overall than the Fama and French model and other alternative models, according to both the Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken test and the Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure test. Next, using the final conditional five‐factor model as the de facto model, it was determined that the turnover ratio and the size can consistently predict Jensen's alphas. The book‐to‐market ratio (BM) and the past one‐year returns can also significantly predict the alpha, albeit to a lesser extent.

In the literature related to Japanese data, there has never been a comprehensive test of conditional asset pricing models using the long‐run data of individual firms. The conditional asset pricing model derived for this study has led to new findings about the predictability of past one‐year returns and the turnover ratio.

Since the introduction of VIX to measure the spot volatility in the stock market, VIX and its futures have been widely considered to be the standard of underlying investor sentiment. This study aims to examine how the magnitude of contango or backwardation (MCB volatility risk factor) derived from VIX and VIX3M may affect the pricing of assets.

This paper focuses on the statistical inference of three defined MCB risk factors when cross-examined with Fama–French’s five factors: the market factor R_m–R_f, the size factor SMB (small minus big), the value factor HML (high minus low B/M), the profitability factor RMW (robust minus weak) and the investing factor CMA (conservative minus aggressive). Robustness checks are performed with the revised HML-Dev factor, as well as with daily data sets.

The inclusions of the MCB volatility risk factor, either defined as a spread of monthly VIX3M/VIX and its monthly MA(20), or as a monthly net return of VIX3M/VIX, generally enhance the explanatory power of all factors in the Fama and French’s model, in particular the market factor R_m–R_f and the value factor HML, and the investing factor CMA also displays a significant and positive correlation with the MCB risk factor. When the more in-time adjusted HML-Dev factor, suggested by Asness (2014), replaces the original HML factor, results are generally better and more intuitive, with a higher R² for the market factor and more explanatory power with HML-Dev.

This paper introduces the term structure of VIX to Fama–French’s asset pricing model. The MCB risk factor identifies underlying configurations of investor sentiment. The sensitivities to this timing indicator will significantly relate to returns across individual stocks or portfolios.

Although the value effect is comprehensively investigated in developed markets, the number of studies examining the Vietnamese stock market is limited. Hence, the first aim of this research is to provide empirical evidence regarding returns on value and growth stocks in Vietnam. The second aim is to explain abnormal returns on Vietnamese growth and value stocks using both risk-based and behavioral points of view.

From the risk-based explanation, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Fama–French three- and five-factor models are estimated. From the behavioral explanation, to construct the mispricing factor, this paper relies on the method of Rhodes-Kropf et al. (2005), one of the most popular mispricing estimations in the financial literature with numerous citations (Jaffe et al., 2020).

While the CAPM and Fama–French multifactor models cannot capture returns on growth and value stocks, a three-factor model with the mispricing factor has done an excellent job in explaining their returns. Three out of four Fama–French mimic factors do not contain additional information on expected returns. Their risk premiums are also statistically insignificant according to the Fama–MacBeth second-stage regression. By contrast, both robustness tests prove the explanatory power of a three-factor model with mispricing. Taken together, mispricing plays an essential role in explaining returns on Vietnamese growth and value stocks, consistent with the behavioral point of view.

There are several value-enhancing aspects in the field of market finance. First, this paper contributes to the literature of value effect in emerging markets. While the evidence of value effect is obvious in numerous developed as well as international markets, both growth and value effects are discovered in Vietnam. Second, the explanatory power of Fama–French multifactor models is evaluated in the Vietnamese context. Finally, to the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first paper that incorporates the mispricing estimation of Rhodes-Kropf et al. (2005) into the asset pricing model in Vietnam.

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 compare the performance of various multifactor asset pricing models across ten emerging and developed markets.

The general methodology to test asset pricing models involves regressing test asset returns (left-hand side assets) on pricing factors (right-hand side assets). Then the performance of different models is evaluated based on how well they price multiple test assets together. The parameters used to compare relative performance of different models are their pricing errors (GRS statistic and average absolute intercepts) and explained variation (average adjusted R²).

The Fama-French five-factor model improves the pricing performance for stocks in Australia, Canada, China and the USA. The pricing in these countries appears to be more integrated. However, the superior performance in these four countries is not consistent across a variety of test assets and the magnitude of reduction in pricing errors vis-à-vis three- or four-factor models is often economically insignificant. For other markets, the parsimonious three-factor model or its four-factor variants appear to be more suitable.

Unlike most asset pricing studies that use test assets based on variables that are already used to construct RHS factors, this study uses test assets that are generally different from RHS sorts. This makes the tests more robust and less biased to be in favour of any multifactor model. Also, most international studies of asset pricing tests use data for different markets and combine them into regions. This study provides the evidence from ten countries separately because prior research has shown that locally constructed factors are more suitable to explain asset prices. Further, this study also tests for the usefulness of adding a quality factor in the existing asset pricing models.

This paper aims to investigate the explanatory power of the Fama-French five-factor model and compares it to the other asset pricing models. In addition, the paper examines the contributions of two additional factors: profitability and investment factor. The authors test the alternative four-factor models.

The authors use stock returns data of BSE-500 listed firms for the Indian market, an emerging market, from 1999 to 2020, thus covering the post-Asian crisis and pre- and post-financial crisis (2007–2008) periods. The authors employ 75 and 96 portfolios based on different factors. To check the performance of asset pricing models, the authors also used the GRS F-statistics and factor spanning tests.

The authors find that the five-factor model and alternative four-factor model outperform the three-factor model. Contrary to the findings for the US, but similar to the Chinese stock market, the value factor is significant for the Indian stock market. Simultaneously, the authors also find that the investment factor has no explanatory power in the presence of the profitability factor in their sample.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study using data more than two decades. These results are based on 75 (25 × 3) portfolios based on size, value, profitability and investment. The authors also tested these results based on 96 (32 × 3) portfolios to check robustness, and these results still hold. Furthermore, the authors find that factors based on 2 × 3 sorting have higher explanatory power than those based on 2 × 2 and 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 sorting.

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.