Search results

This study aims to analyze the returns obtained from companies with strong growth potential (growth stocks) and the returns from companies with quite low stock prices, but with high value (value stocks).

The sample comprises monthly data, from January 2002 to December 2016, from seven countries, Germany, France, Switzerland, the UK, Portugal, the USA and Japan. The authors have used linear regression models for three different periods, the pre-crisis, subprime crisis and post-crisis period.

The results point out that the performance of value and growth stocks differs from different periods surrounding the global financial crisis. In fact, for six countries, value stocks outperformed growth stocks in the period that precedes the subprime crisis and during the crisis, this tendency remained only for France, Portugal and Japan. This trend changed in the period following the crisis. The results also show that investor sentiment has a robust significance in value and growth stock returns, mostly in the period before the crisis, highlighting that the investor sentiment is more significant in the moments that the value stocks outperformed.

As far as the authors know, this is the first work that, taking into account the future research lines of Capaul et al. (1993), investigates whether the results obtained by those authors remain current, meeting the authors’ challenge and covering the gap of recent studies on the performance of value and growth stocks. Besides, the authors have introduced a new country, heavily punished by both the global financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis to understand whether there are significant differences in investment styles and whether this is related to the different economies. Also, in this context, the authors were pioneers in adding investor sentiment as an exogenous variable in the influence of stock returns.

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.

Investors label high (low) book-to-market (B/M) firms as value (growth) companies. The conventional wisdom supports that growth stocks grow faster than the value ones, creating greater shareholder value. The Purpose of this paper is to analyze how stocks of growth and value companies create value for their shareholders in Brazil, compared to the USA market. For this, the authors analyze three dimensions of return.

First, the authors perform portfolios to analyze the growth rates of shareholders’ return. Then, the authors perform regressions to study the explanatory power of the B/M in growth. The data come from Thomson Reuters Eikon database and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. The authors select all non-financial firms with available data from 1997 to 2017.

The profitability of growth firms is higher than the value ones, in almost every year after the portfolios’ formation, with little variation. Contrary to the findings for the US market, growth companies in Brazil show higher dividend growth than value companies.

It is possible that the database does not contain complete and entirely reliable accounting data, which may partially affect the results.

The findings contradict those exposed in the USA. The implications are the inverse of the US study: the duration-based explanation could be a vital factor for the value premium in the Brazilian stock market. Also, the findings support the standard valuation techniques and help the growth rates estimation in the valuation process (top-down approach).

This study is the first to compare the profitability and dividend growth of growth/value stocks in the Brazilian market. Overall, growth stocks have considerable profitability, and dividend growth compared to value stocks.

This study aims to analyse the effects of Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) on the return of growth/value and small/large-cap stocks during expansionary and recessionary periods across a conditional distribution.

The authors selected a sample covering the period between 01/1995–05/2021. Quantile regressions were applied to the EPU and Russell indices. Business cycles were established following the NBER.

The results show that EPU has a negative effect on stocks with the intensity of the effect depending on the stock's profile. Small-cap and growth stocks were found to be most sensitive to EPU, especially during recessions. The negative effect is moderated by the economic cycle but is progressively diluted at the lower tail of the stock return distribution.

The findings shed more light on investment strategies for growth/value investors that pursue opportunities arising from a changing economic cycle.

This study makes the following contributions: (1) explores the impact of EPU on the return of different stocks across a conditional distribution, and (2) provides evidence on how the economic cycle influences EPU impact on growth/value stocks and small/large stocks.

:本研究擬分析跨條件分佈、以及於擴張期和衰退期,經濟政策不確定性對成長型股票/價值股和小盤股/大型股的收益的影響。

我們選擇了涵蓋1995年1月與2021年5月期間的樣本進行研究。我們於經濟政策不確定性指數和羅素指數上採用分位數迴歸法進行研究; 並跟隨著美國國家經濟研究局,建立了多個經濟週期。

研究結果顯示,經濟政策不確定性對股票是有負面影響的,而影響的強度則視乎股票的投資組合而定。我們發現,小盤股和成長型股票對經濟政策不確定性是非常敏感的,尤其是在經濟衰退期間。這負面影響會被經濟週期緩和,唯這緩和作用卻會在股票收益的低尾處逐漸減輕。

研究結果使我們更容易理解為尋找因經濟週期改變而衍生的機會的增長/價值投資者所提供的投資策略。

本研究有以下的貢獻:(一) 、 探究了經濟政策不確定性對跨條件分佈、不同的股票收益的影響; (二) 、為經濟週期會如何左右經濟政策不確定性對成長型股票/價值股和小盤股/大型股的影響,提供了證據。

The value‐premium is the empirical observation that “value” stocks (low market/book) have higher returns than “growth” stocks (high market/book). The purpose of this paper is to propose a new explanation for the value‐premium that the authors call the limits to growth hypothesis.

To guide the testing, a dynamic equity valuation model was used that has the property that profitability increases risk for value firms in anticipation of future growth‐leverage, whereas, profitability “covers” the capital expenditure costs of growth, which decreases risk for growth firms. Because the authors interpret dividends as a corporate response to growth‐limits, they test for this predicted differential relation between profitability and risk for value versus growth stocks with the returns of profitable dividend‐paying firms.

It is found that profitability increases returns to a greater extent for dividend‐paying value firms compared to dividend‐paying growth firms, which is consistent with a differential relation between profitability and risk. At the same time, it is also found that growth firms have lower returns than value firms.

The authors use the limits‐to‐growth hypothesis to explain why profitability can either increase or decrease risk. High‐profitability dividend‐paying growth firms have lower returns than low‐profitability dividend‐paying value firms. This value‐premium is consistent with the argument that high profitability “covers” the capital expenditure costs of growth, which decreases risk and, thus, returns. At the same time, profitability increases returns to a greater extent for value stocks compared to growth stocks, which is consistent with the hypothesis that profitability increases risk for value firms in anticipation of future growth‐leverage.

Market-based value style equity portfolios do not systematically outperform market-based growth style equity portfolios, despite considerable academic research that suggests that they should. This is an unresolved puzzle in the long lineage of work on this topic. The purpose of this paper is to question whether portfolio constituency rules employed by active growth and value equity investment managers might explain this puzzle.

The authors use the traditional research design and methodology of Fama and French (1993) to ensure comparability of results to prior research. Further, the authors adapt the return decomposition method of Keim (1999) to specifically answer the question in the research.

The authors find that restrictive constituency rules that omit the smallest, most illiquid stocks improve the performance of both value and growth stock portfolios. However, the authors find the impact of constituency rule restrictions on portfolio returns to be asymmetric with respect to value and growth in the small-cap investment space. Growth portfolios benefit from these changes more than value portfolios. Consistent with prior research, the authors find that value and growth style portfolios constructed from more liquid equities to be void of a statistically significant value-minus-growth return premium. The authors suggest these results might go a long way in explaining why market-based growth fund returns generally equal those of their value fund counterparts over time.

The research question central to the research, the value equity premium, has been investigated by researchers around the world over the last 20 years. The 20 year lineage of global published research on the value equity premium does, however, contain several unresolved questions. The paper specifically asks why the premium, long observed in global equity market returns, does not appear in market-based passive or active equity portfolios. This puzzle exists at the heart of the origins of the return premium itself and has serious implications for investment practitioners. If the matter cannot be reconciled, then market participants might rightly view the entire 20 year lineage of published research as irrelevant. The paper is one of few that has now extended the long lineage of research to its application in real markets.

This study aims to investigate whether the zero-investment portfolio strategy generates higher excess returns for all listed companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) or ESG100 stocks. The study period is from January 2016 to December 2020, a total of 60 months. The dividend yield is employed for categorizing the stock into value and growth stocks. The strategy of buying value stocks and short-selling growth stocks is then applied. The results show that investing using the zero-investment portfolio strategy can generate higher returns in an investment portfolio that consists of ESG100 stocks than in an investment portfolio that consists of all stocks in the SET. The optimal holding periods for investing in portfolios that consist of stocks in the SET are 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months, and the optimal holding periods for a portfolio that consists of ESG100 stocks is 6 months. To explain excess returns of stocks in the SET, the Fama and French (2015) five-factor model is employed. There is no relation between risk factors and excess returns for the holding period of 6 months and 12 months. However, excess return is found to have a negative relation with the market risk premium factor for a 9-month holding period. The excess returns of ESG100 stocks are also inversely correlated with investment factors for a holding period of 6 months.

The purpose of this research is to study the extent to which various price and earnings momentum measures can be used to enhance portfolio performance by better timing entry into value stocks (and isolating those growth stocks that still have some period to run).

The paper uses the traditional methodology of ranking stocks on the basis of certain value and momentum measures (e.g. book‐to‐market, market return over some prior period), forming portfolios based on these rankings which are held for a specific period of time. The portfolios are formed on the basis of a single measure of multiple measures and the returns and associated p‐values are calculated with the objective of determining how these portfolios perform relative to a benchmark portfolio composed of all the companies in the universe. The analysis is conducted on a database consisting of approximately 8,000 companies drawn from 15 European countries over the period from January 1989 to May 2004.

It was found that a number of individual, and combinations of, price and earnings momentum factors are able to enhance value portfolios by identifying stocks that will not perform well in the immediate future. The best measure that was found for timing entry into value and growth stocks is a combination of price momentum and price acceleration where the difference in monthly performance between the “best” and “worst” value (growth) portfolios is 2.6 percent (2.4 percent) for holding periods of 12 months. It was found not only that this momentum measure can be used to enhance value and growth in portfolios consisting of all European stocks but also that it can be successfully deployed in the major individual markets and regions.

Most studies that evaluate the performance of value and growth portfolios do not consider the characteristics of the stocks held in these portfolios. However, it is these characteristics that determine the success of the portfolios formed on the basis of what can only be described as very crude valuation multiples. This paper demonstrates the potential of a closer evaluation of the stocks chosen to be included in a particular portfolio by being able to identify those stocks most likely to perform (and under‐perform). The findings in the paper have obvious implications for the investment processes of investment managers but they also provide useful insights into the efficiency of the European markets and the typical means of price formation within those markets.

The purpose of this paper is to construct and evaluate value and growth portfolios in Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, which are commonly known as the EU PIIGS, from 2003 to 2015. Previous research evidence suggests that stocks trading at a lower price relative to their fundamentals (value stocks) tend to outperform stocks that trade at higher prices (growth stocks) in the long run. Although this market anomaly has been studied immensely worldwide, especially for the US stock market, there is no clear evidence whether such an assertion is applicable in less-renowned countries.

The paper utilises Fama and Macbeth (1973) regressions and its model extensions.

This paper finds a significant value premium in these countries, which is compatible with previous studies conducted worldwide.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to examine this asset pricing anomaly in the PIIGS.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the connection between the accrual quality and the growth/value characteristics (and their return premia) at firm level.

The paper employs a battery of univariate and multivariate cross‐sectional tests. Fama‐MacBeth regressions with main effects and interaction effects are used to identify the relation between accrual quality, book‐to‐market and returns. The analysis is conducted on the overall sample, as well as after conditioning on up and down markets.

Value (growth) stocks are more likely to be associated with high (low) accrual quality. Value stocks earn higher returns mainly in down markets, while poor accrual quality firms have significantly higher returns during up markets, but significantly lower returns during down markets. There is a significant interaction effect between accrual quality and the value premium, which only exhibits in the down markets (i.e. stocks with poor accrual quality earn a higher value premium in down markets than stocks with good accrual quality).

Results in this paper help disentangle between various explanations proposed for the accrual quality premium and the value premium. These findings are consistent with the idea that the same underlying risk factor generating the value premium also generates the cross‐sectional variation in accrual quality responsible for the accrual quality premium. From the corporate managers' perspective, the results imply that value firms can mitigate their higher costs of capital by providing high quality of accounting information. From an analyst's perspective, the study suggests that considering both accrual quality and growth characteristics can help make better portfolio allocation decisions than when these are considered separately.