Search results

In most portfolio performance studies, a reference portfolio is used to assess the performance of a portfolio manager. The choice of an appropriate reference portfolio is essential to yield a fair and unbiased evaluation of the manager. In the following analyses, category‐based benchmarks are assessed against established benchmarks to evaluate, which alternative accurately evaluates a portfolio manager's performance. The results indicate that the category‐based benchmarks are more appropriate comparison reference for evaluating the systematic risk of equity portfolios and equity security returns.

This paper explores the relationship between size, book-to-market, beta, and expected stock returns in the U.S. Information Technology sector over the July 1990–June 2001 period. Two models, the multivariate model and the three-factor model, are employed to test these relationships. The risk-return tests confirm the relationship between size, book-to-market, beta and stock returns in IT stocks is different from that in other non-financial stocks. However, the sub-period results (the periods before and after the technology crash in April 2000) show that the nature of the relationship between stock returns, size, book-to-market, and market factors, or the magnitude of the size, book-to-market, and market premiums, is on average unchanged for both sub-periods. This result suggests the technology stock crash in April 2000 was not a correction of stock prices.

This study investigates the impact of uncertainty on the mean-variance relationship. We find that the stock market's expected excess return is positively related to the market's conditional variances and implied variance during low uncertainty periods but unrelated or negatively related to conditional variances and implied variance during high uncertainty periods. Our empirical evidence is consistent with investors' attitudes toward uncertainty and risk, firms' fundamentals and leverage effects varying with uncertainty. Additionally, we discover that the negative relationship between returns and contemporaneous innovations of conditional variance and the positive relationship between returns and contemporaneous innovations of implied variance are significant during low uncertainty periods. Furthermore, our results are robust to changing the base assets to mimic the uncertainty factor and removing the effect of investor sentiment.

This study aims to examine the listing of firms at the highest corporate governance level of the Brazilian stock exchange (B3) as a means of legitimation and its relationship with risk and return on investment.

This paper analyzes 205 companies from 2010 to 2019, in which firms listed at the Novo Mercado level were compared with groups composed of other firms traded on B3.

The main results demonstrate that a listing at the supposedly higher level of corporate governance in Brazil does not indicate lower risk, a higher return or even a better risk-return ratio.

The findings are restricted to this sample, representing the association identified between the analyzed phenomena and not a cause-effect relationship.

The highest level of corporate governance in Brazil brings together firms that present a higher risk (at least systematic) and lower returns (at least financial) because they seek to legitimize themselves in the market as firms committed to better management practices.

These findings are useful to investors, the stock exchange, regulatory agents and the companies themselves to reflect on the purpose and usefulness of different levels of corporate governance in Brazil.

This study differs from the others that relate corporate governance to risk or return because it does not deal individually with corporate governance practices, but rather the phenomenon that is listed in a special governance level, created by the stock exchange, serving as a kind of seal legitimation.

This study examines the determinants of idiosyncratic risk (IR) or unsystematic risk. The study also examines the determinants of IR by dividing the firms into different categories: beta-based firms, liquid and illiquid firms and financially constrained (FC) and unconstrained (FUC) firms.

The fixed effects static panel data model specifications are formulated based on Hausman (1978) test for BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) member countries over the period 2000–2019. Moreover, the t-test is applied to see whether the returns of different types of portfolios are significantly different.

The portfolio analysis results show that, on average, high IR firms tend to be small in size, highly leveraged, have low competitiveness, low profitability, less dividend yield and low returns for all the sampled countries. The sample paired t-test also confirms that a significant difference exists between extreme portfolios: small and large size and low IR and high IR portfolios. The panel regression results show that firm size, market power, price-to-earnings ratio, return on equity (ROE) and dividend yield negatively relates to IR. Yet, both leverage and liquidity are positively related to IR. However, the sign of momentum returns is mostly positive for the entire sample. The coefficient values for high-beta, FC and illiquid firms are more significant and large than the firms' counterparts for all BRICS member countries. These results support the hypothesis of an under-diversified portfolio and suggest that the above-mentioned firm-specific variables are the significant determinants of unsystematic risk.

The securities exchange commission, as the supervisor of the public limited companies, needs to increase its role in investor protection related to the uncertainty of investment in the capital market. Accordingly, in making investment decisions in a stock exchange, investors can use the information that captures unsystematic risk for investment decision-making.

This study is the first to explore the determinants of IR in top emerging countries. Second, none of the existing studies has focused on the determinants of the IR based on different categories of firms.

The purpose of this paper is to pay more attention to four different research questions at least. One is that this study intends to explore the changes of the risk-return relationship over time, because the institutions and environment have changed a lot and might tend to influence the risk-return regime in the Chinese stock markets. The second question is whether there is any difference for the risk-return relationship between Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets. The third question is to compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the risk-return tradeoff for different frequency data. The fourth question is to compare the explanation power of different GARCH-M type models which are all widely used in exploring the risk-return tradeoff.

This paper investigates the risk-return tradeoff in the Chinese emerging stock markets with a sample including daily, weekly and monthly market return series. A group of variant specifications of GARCH-M type models are used to test the risk-return tradeoff. Additionally, some diagnostic checks proposed by Engle and Ng (1993) are used in this paper, and this will help to assess the robustness of different models.

The empirical results show that the dynamic risk-return relationship is quite different between Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets. A positive and statistically significant risk-return relationship is found for the daily returns in Shenzhen Stock Exchange, while the conditional mean of the stock returns is negatively related to the conditional variance in Shanghai Stock Exchange. The risk-return relationship usually becomes much weaker for the lower frequency returns in both markets. A further study with the sub-samples finds a positive and significant risk-return trade-off for both markets in the second stage after July 1, 1999.

This paper extends the existing related researches about the Chinese stock markets in several ways. First, this study uses a longer sample to investigate the relationship between stock returns and volatility. Second, this study estimates the returns and volatility relationship with different frequency sample data together. Third, a group of variant specifications of GARCH-M type models are used to test the risk-return tradeoff. In particular, the author employs the Component GARCH-M model which is relatively new in this line of research. Fourth, this study investigates if there is any structural break affecting the risk-return relationship in the Chinese stock markets over time.

The risk-return relationship is one of the most widely investigated topics in finance, yet this relationship remains one of the most controversial topics. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the asymmetric volatility and the risk-return tradeoff at the sector level in the emerging stock market of Jordan.

Data consist of daily prices for 22 sub-sectors spanning from August 1, 2006, to September 30, 2015, covering the periods of pre, during, and after the global financial crisis. The EGARCH-M model is used to document the patterns of asymmetric volatility of sub-sector returns and the risk-return tradeoff during the non-overlapping three sub-sample periods.

The major findings of this study are as follows. In the pre-crisis period, the results suggest some evidence of a positive relationship between risk and return. The results also reveal that good news has more effect than bad news during the same period. In the crisis period, there is a negative but insignificant risk-return relationship and negative shocks have more impact than positive ones. In the post-crisis period, the authors find positive but insignificant risk-return tradeoff with weak evidence of volatility asymmetry.

The results have major implications for investors willing to engage their investment decisions in the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) and for policymakers who seek to attract and retain regional and international investors. Since the empirical investigation is conducted at the sector level, the study may aid investors to target specific sub-sectors with positive and significant risk-return tradeoff. In addition, investors need to monitor the asymmetric patterns which make the level of risk-aversion more susceptible to coming news. For policymakers, the latest infrastructure reforms are crucial to achieving the potential for growth but the ASE market authority needs to undergo further reforms and provide various promotional incentives.

Although there are numerous studies on asymmetric volatility and risk-return tradeoff, there is a lack of parallel studies at the sector level for both developed and emerging stock markets. Such assessment at the sector level is crucial for international investors after their choice of countries or markets for better choice of portfolio diversification and allocation of financial resources.

This chapter introduces empirical studies of firm performance and related risk outcomes conducted in the management and finance fields presenting underlying theoretical rationales as they have evolved over time. Early finance studies of market-based returns predominantly found positively skewed return distributions that conform to assumptions about higher returns associated with more risky investments. Subsequent studies found that performance outcomes measured as accounting-based financial returns generally display left-skewed distributions that reflect negative risk-return relationships. This artifact was first observed by Bowman (1980), thus often referred to as the “Bowman paradox” because it contravened the conventional assumptions in finance. The management studies have largely confirmed the inverse risk-return observations but often following rather confined research streams. A contingency perspective inspired by prospect theory and behavioral rationales have investigated the lagged effects of performance on risk outcomes and vice versa. Another stream has focused on the spurious relationships between negatively skewed performance distributions and the inverse risk-return associations. A third approach considered the performance and risk outcomes as deriving from the firms responding in distinct ways to exogenous changes. These studies reach comparable results but underpinned by very different rationales. The finance studies observe deviations from the pure doctrine of positive risk-return associations embedded in the widely adopted capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and note deficiencies with alternative interpretations that even question the validity of CAPM. A more recent strain of studies in behavioral finance observes how many (even professional) investment managers have biases that lead to inverse relationships between perceived risk and return outcomes. While these diverse fields of study have different starting points, they uncover an increasing number of interesting commonalities that can inspire the ongoing search for explanations to observed left-skewed financial returns and negative risk-return correlations across firms.

This study aims to investigate the risk-return trade-off in the Indian equity market at both the aggregate equity market level and in the cross-sections of stock return using alternative risk measures.

The study uses weekly and monthly data of 3,085 Bombay Stock Exchange-listed stocks spanning over 20 years from January 2000 to December 2019. The study evaluates the risk-return trade-off at the aggregate equity market level using the value-weighted and the equal-weighted broader portfolios. Eight different risk proxies belonging to the conventional, downside and extreme risk categories are considered to analyse the cross-sectional risk-return relationship.

The results show a positive equity premium on the value-weighted portfolio; however, the equal-weighted portfolio of these stocks shows an average return lower than the return on the 91-day Treasury Bills. The inverted size premium mainly causes this anomaly in the Indian equity market as the small stocks have lower returns than big stocks. The study presents a strong negative risk-return relationship across different risk proxies. However, under the subsample of more liquid stocks, the low-risk anomaly regarding other risk proxies becomes moderate except the beta-anomaly. This anomalous relationship seems to be caused by small and less liquid stocks having low institutional ownership and higher short-selling constraints.

The findings have important implications for investors, managers and practitioners. Investors can incorporate the effects of different highlighted anomalies in their investment strategies to fetch higher returns. Managers can also use these findings in their capital budgeting decisions, resource allocations and other diverse range of direct and indirect decisions, particularly in emerging markets such as India. The findings provide insights to practitioners while valuing the firms.

The study is among the earlier attempts to examine the risk-return trade-off in an emerging equity market at both the aggregate equity market level and in the cross-sections of stock returns using alternative measures of risk and expected returns.