Search results

We identify a novel concept of discretionary idiosyncratic volatility proxied by the idiosyncratic volatility component not related to the non-systematic industry volatility as a source of agency problems that have implications for firms’ cash holdings and their investment decisions. We find that firms with low discretionary idiosyncratic volatility, which likely captures discretionary effort and risk-taking by managers, have smaller cash reserves. Moreover, while high discretionary idiosyncratic volatility firms spend cash internally (internal capital building), low discretionary idiosyncratic volatility firms use it for external acquisitions, consistent with the “quiet life” hypothesis. Our findings thus indicate a need for reinforcement of existing regulations and corporate laws to control for agency costs, which could in turn reduce firm risk and the probability of financial meltdown at the aggregate level.

This paper aims to examine whether idiosyncratic volatility and other asset pricing factors predict growth rates of the ten Australian economic indicators.

The authors use the Liew and Vassalou (2000) model augmented with an idiosyncratic volatility factor to investigate the issue.

Using regression analysis, the authors find that the asset pricing factors can be used to predict the growth rates for eight out of the ten economic indicators. Moreover, using portfolio performance analysis, the authors find that high returns of size factor and a book-to-market factor portfolios precede periods of good macroeconomic states, whereas high returns of HIMLI portfolios precede periods of bad macroeconomic states.

To the authors’ knowledge, the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and Australian economic growth has not been investigated explicitly in the literature.

This paper aims to investigate whether idiosyncratic volatility is priced in returns of equity funds while controlling for fund size and return momentum.

Following Fama and French (1993), an idiosyncratic volatility mimicking factor and a fund-size factor are constructed. The pricing ability of this idiosyncratic volatility mimicking factor is investigated in the context of Carhart (1997).

Idiosyncratic volatility is an important pricing factor even when controlling for fund size and momentum. In addition, idiosyncratic volatility is strongly and positively associated with the momentum effect. Further, when controlling for the association between the momentum effect and idiosyncratic volatility, the explanatory power of the momentum factor almost disappears, which suggests the pricing of idiosyncratic volatility mediates momentum and returns.

These findings imply that both the idiosyncratic volatility factor and the fund-size factor should not be ignored by fund managers when evaluating the performance of the equity funds.

This paper analyzes the roles of idiosyncratic risk and firm-level conditional skewness in determining cross-sectional returns. It is shown that the traditional EGARCH estimates of conditional idiosyncratic volatility may bring significant finite sample estimation bias in the presence of non-Gaussianity. We propose a new estimator that has more robust sampling performance than the EGARCH MLE in the presence of heavy-tail or skewed innovations. Our cross-sectional portfolio analysis demonstrates that the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle documented by Ang, Hodrick, Xiang, and Zhang (2006) exists intertemporally. We conduct further analysis to solve the puzzle. We show that two factors idiosyncratic variance and individual conditional skewness play important roles in determining cross-sectional returns. A new concept, the “expected windfall,” is introduced as an alternate measure of conditional return skewness. After controlling for these two additional factors, we solve the major piece of this puzzle: Our cross-sectional regression tests identify a positive relationship between conditional idiosyncratic volatility and expected returns for over 99% of the total market capitalization of the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX stock exchanges.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to add an important new dimension to the earnings management literature by establishing a link between idiosyncratic risk and the degree of accrual management.

Based on a comprehensive sample of 44,599 firm-year observations during the period spanning 1987-2009, the study offers robust empirical evidence of the importance of firm-specific idiosyncratic volatility as a determinant of earnings manipulation. The authors use standard measures of earnings management and idiosyncratic volatility. The authors test the hypotheses with robust econometrics techniques.

The authors document a strong positive relationship between idiosyncratic risk and accruals management. Further, the authors find a positive association between residual volatility and discretionary accruals whether accruals are income inflationary or income deflationary. The findings are robust to alternate idiosyncratic risk proxies and variables associated with earnings management.

Overall, the knowledge derived from this study provides additional tools to assess the degree of earnings management by firms, and hence the quality of the financial reporting. Thus the findings will enable standard setters, financial market regulators, analysts, and investors to make more informed legislative, regulatory, resource allocation, and investment decisions.

This paper aims to propose an alternative method to measure idiosyncratic volatility and test whether the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle holds in commodity futures markets.

This paper proposes a partially new measure of idiosyncratic volatility in commodity futures markets based on the Schwartz and Smith (2000) short-term/long-term model. This model enables us to capture systematic risks of commodity futures markets in a parsimonious way.

Using a sample of futures contracts for 20 commodities from 1973 to 2022, this paper demonstrates that idiosyncratic volatility is more significant than systematic volatility in commodity futures markets, and that the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle does not hold in these markets. This paper also performs robustness tests to investigate whether the puzzle holds during subsample periods when commodity markets are more volatile and find consistent results. This study highlights the differences between commodity futures markets and equity markets and emphasizes the importance of investigating idiosyncratic volatility in commodity futures markets.

The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, this paper contributes to the literature by focusing on the idiosyncratic volatility of commodity futures returns. Second, this paper constructs a partially new measure of idiosyncratic volatility in commodity futures markets. Finally, this paper also contributes to the literature on the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle and demonstrates that the puzzle may not exist in commodity futures markets.

Considering the role of analysts in disseminating information, the paper explains the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle of China's stock market. As the largest developing country, China's research can provide meaningful reference for the research of financial markets in other new countries.

From the perspective of behavior, establishing a direct link between individual investor attention and stock price overvaluation.

The authors find that there is a significant idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in China's stock market. Due to the role of mispricing, individual investor attention significantly enhances the idiosyncratic volatility effect, that is, as individual investor attention increases, the greater the idiosyncratic volatility, the lower the expected return. Attention can explain the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle in China's stock market. In addition, due to the role of information production and dissemination, securities analysts can reduce the degree of market information asymmetry and enhance the transparency of market information.

China is the second largest economy in the world, and few scholars analyze it from the perspective of investors' attention. The authors believe this paper has the potential in contributing to the academia.

Malkiel and Xu state that idiosyncratic volatility is highly correlated with size and that it plays a powerful role in explaining expected returns. The purpose of this paper is to ask whether idiosyncratic volatility is useful in explaining the variation in expected returns; and whether the findings can be explained by the turn of the year effect.

Monthly stock returns and market values of all listed firms in Germany and UK covering the period 1991‐2001 from Datastream are used as the basis of the evaluation.

The paper finds that the three‐factor model provides a better description of expected returns than the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). That is, it is found that firm size and idiosyncratic volatility are related to security returns. In addition, it is noted that the findings are robust throughout the sample period

The paper shows that the CAPM beta alone is not sufficient to explain the variation in stock returns.