Search results

Lai, Li, Conover, and Wu (2010) propose a four-factor financial distress model to explain stock returns in the U.S. and Japanese markets. We examine this model in the stock markets of Australia, and six Asian markets (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand). We find broad empirical support for the four-factor financial distress risk asset-pricing model in those markets. The four-factor financial distress asset pricing model improves explanatory power beyond the Fama–French (1993) three-factor asset pricing model in six of the seven Asian-Pacific markets (12 of 14 portfolio groupings), while the Carhart (1997) momentum-based asset pricing model only improves explanatory power beyond the Fama–French model in three of the seven markets (4 of 14 portfolio groupings).

We examine explicitly priced financial distress risk in post-1990 equity markets. We add a financial distress risk factor to Fama and French's (1993) three-factor model, based on Griffin and Lemmon's (2002) findings that financial distress is not fully captured by the book-to-market factor. We test three-factor and four-factor capital asset pricing models using both annual buy-and-hold analysis and monthly time series analysis across portfolios adjusted for common book-to-market, size, and financial distress factors. We find empirical support for an Ohlson (1980) O-score-based financial distress risk four-factor asset pricing model in the U.S. and Japanese markets.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of long-term debt and firm value in the lodging industry. Previous research on capital structure in the lodging industry has been conducted in an attempt to understand what motivates the use of debt. We explore this further by assessing whether or not this debt use translates into increases in firm value. The regression analysis shows that after controlling for size and risk, we find a positive relationship with long-term debt and the value of the firm. Return on assets is negatively related to firm value, but capital expenditures are not.

The study discussed in this article examines two empirical questions: (1) Can multiple financial signals enhance the intermediate-horizon returns of value and glamour investments on Asian stock markets? and (2) Do the return enhancements, if any, differ by value and growth firm types and vary across different markets? The results of this study show that financial signals affect return enhancements, and these enhancements differ by firm types and vary across markets. These differences can be explained by non-positive value premiums and relatively poor information quality documented on Asian markets.