Search results

The authors evaluate the Sell in May effect in the Canadian context to comprehensively explore the Sell in May effect as well as its interactions with the size effect and risk and with multiple indices.

The authors use ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to examine the Sell in May effect and Huber M-estimation to handle potential outliers. They also use the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models to explore the role of risk in the Sell in May effect.

The results demonstrate that the Sell in May effect is present in all three main Canadian stock market indices. More telling, the anomaly is strongest in small cap indices and in indices that give equal weighting to small and large cap stocks. They do not find that the effect is driven by risk.

While several papers have explored the Sell in May phenomenon in several countries, little scholarly attention has been paid to this effect in Canada and to its interaction with the size effect. The authors contribute to the literature by examining of the interactions between Sell in May and the size effect in Canada. They examine the Sell in May effect using CFMRC value-weighted and equally weighted indices of all Canadian companies. They also incorporate in their analysis the role of risk.

International Accounting Standards Rule 37 (IAS 37) for Contingent Liabilities and Assets were designed to make analysis of exposures facing a corporate entity easier to understand, but the rules may be insufficiently prescriptive making provisions inadequate predictors of potential outlays. The purpose of this research is to redress this problem. We apply financial option theory to objectively mark-to-market the appropriateness of provisions replacing subjective inputs with market derived calculations.

This study applies financial option theory to determine whether provisions are appropriate according to market data. This research supports inferences regarding the probability of a provision being used while evidencing scope for earnings management.

In addition to showing how IAS 37 provisions may be calibrated against market data, from the large sample of UK-listed companies, the proposition that over-provisioning is common and related to share price volatility, is supported, supporting the view that IAS 37 rules may facilitate earnings management.

The financial and reporting community have struggled in interpreting the appropriateness of IAS 37 provisions. Are they too large or too small? What is the probability they will be used? Using option theory and market data, various subjective judgements may now be validated. This research should have tangible value to analysts, auditors, investors and other stakeholders concerned in the accurate valuation of potential liabilities.

Replacing subjective judgement and insufficiently prescriptive guidance, this study shows that financial option theory and share price data may be used to objectively calibrate the size of IAS 37 provisions.

This paper aims to better jointly estimate Value at Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) by using the joint regression combined forecasting (JRCF) model.

Combining different forecasting models in financial risk measurement can improve their prediction accuracy by integrating the individual models’ information. This paper applies the JRCF model to measure VaR and ES at 5%, 2.5% and 1% probability levels in the Chinese stock market. While ES is not elicitable on its own, the joint elicitability property of VaR and ES is established by the joint consistent scoring functions, which further refines the ES’s backtest. In addition, a variety of backtesting and evaluation methods are used to analyze and compare the alternative risk measurement models.

The empirical results show that the JRCF model outperforms the competing models. Based on the evaluation results of the joint scoring functions, the proposed model obtains the minimum scoring function value compared to the individual forecasting models and the average combined forecasting model overall. Moreover, Murphy diagrams’ results further reveal that this model has consistent comparative advantages among all considered models.

The JRCF model of risk measures is proposed, and the application of the joint scoring functions of VaR and ES is expanded. Additionally, this paper comprehensively backtests and evaluates the competing risk models and examines the characteristics of Chinese financial market risks.

A stylized fact in finance literature is the belief in positive relationship between ex ante return and risk. Hence, a rational investor, by utility preference axiom can only consider committing fund in asset which promises commensurate higher return for higher risk. Questions have been asked as to whether this holds true across securities, sectors and markets. Empirical evidence appears less convincing, especially in developing markets. Accordingly, the author investigates the nature of reward for taking risk in the Nigerian Capital Market within the context of individual assets and markets.

The author employed ex post design to collect weekly stock prices of firms listed on the Premium Board of Nigerian Stock Exchange for period 2014–2022 to attempt to answer research questions. Data were analyzed using a unique M Vec TGarch-in-Mean model considered to be robust in handling many assets, and hence portfolio management.

The study found that idea of risk-expected return trade-off is perhaps more general than as depicted by traditional finance literature. The regression revealed that conditional variance and covariance risks reveal minimal or no differences in sign and sizes of coefficients. However, standard errors were also found to be large suggesting somewhat inconclusive evidence of existence of defined incentive structure for taking additional risk in the market.

In terms of choice of methodology and outcomes, this research adds substantial value to body of knowledge. The adapted multivariate model used in this paper is a rare approach especially for management of portfolios in developing markets. Remarkably, the research found empirical evidence that positive risk-expected return trade-off, as known in mainstream literature, is not supported especially using a typical developing country data.