Search results

This paper aims to examine the relationship between the conditional variance of the factors from the Fama–French three‐factor model and macroeconomic risk, where macroeconomic risk is proxied by the conditional variance for a default risk premium and real gross domestic product (GDP) growth.

A generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic model is used to generate the conditional volatilities and bivariate Granger causality tests are used to examine the empirical relationship between the risk measures.

Past values of the conditional variance for a default risk premium have information that is precedent to the conditional volatility for value premium and the small stock risk premium, and the conditional variance for the market risk premium has information about the future volatility of macroeconomic risk, as proxied by the conditional variance for GDP growth.

The implications are that conditional volatility associated with default is related to current and future volatility in value premium; however, volatility associated with the market risk premium appears to be a predictor of future macroeconomic risk. A caveat is that the results are dependent on the proxies used for macroeconomic risk and more refined measures of macroeconomic risk may yield different results.

This paper suggests that examination of the relationship between the volatility of macroeconomic factors and the explanatory factors in asset‐pricing models will help to further understanding of the relationship between risk and expected return.

This paper focuses directly on the links between risk associated with the Fama–French factors and macroeconomic risk. This added knowledge is beneficial to practitioners and academics whose interest lies in asset price modelling.

This analysis seeks to deal with the emerging economies and to reveal that, if the fiscal authority is accountable with a policy that stabilizes the public debt/GDP ratio, the consequence is a low Treasury bond risk premium.

Based on the purpose of this paper, a theoretical model is developed and empirical evidence through an autoregressive distributed lag (ADL) model, taking into account the Brazilian experience, is made.

The findings denote that domestic variables are responsible for determining the risk premium. Moreover, a correct management of the public debt and the use of primary surplus targets make for a good strategy for promoting a fall in the Treasury bond risk premium.

Primary surplus and public debt/GDP ratio can be used as important tools for mitigating the Treasury bond risk premium.

The results of the paper give some new insights about the management of fiscal policy for developing countries.

The variance risk premium defined as the difference between risk neutral variance and physical variance is one of the most crucial information recovered from option prices. It does not, however, reflect the asymmetry in upside and downside movements of underlying asset returns, and also has limitation in reflecting asymmetric preference of investors over gains and losses. In this sense, this paper decomposes variance risk premium into downside - and upside-variance risk premium, and then derives the skewness risk premium and examines its effectiveness in predicting future underlying asset returns. Using KOSPI200 option prices, we obtained the following results. First, we found out that the estimated skewness risk premium has meaningful forecasting power for future stock returns, while the estimated variance risk premium has little forecasting power. Second, by utilizing our results of skewness risk premium, we developed a profitable investment strategy, which verifies the effectiveness of skewness risk premium in predicting future stock returns. In conclusion, the empirical results of this paper can contribute to the literature in that it helps us understand why variance risk premium, in most global markets except the US market, has not been successful in forecasting future stock returns. In addition, our results showing the profitability of investment strategies based on skewness risk premium can also give important implications to practitioners.

This paper examines the implications of standard barter models of market equilibrium for financial security returns in New Zealand. The key question addressed is: does the ‘equity premium puzzle’ of Mehra and Prescott (1985) found in the U.S. also hold in ?ew Zealand? To examine the existence of the equity premium puzzle, quarterly financial security returns and consumption data are examined from 1965 to 1997 to calibrate parameters in the Consumption Based Asset Pricing Model. Unlike much of the existing international evidence, this paper corrects for durable goods consumption following the assumptions of the model that all consumption be consumed in a given period. Numerical analyses indicate that the class of models examined are unable to generate equity premia consistent with historical estimates of the equity premium in New Zealand. Due to small sample variability however, while this discrepancy is material in size, the result is not statistically significant.

Here the author proposes the Mutual Insurance Model with Incentive Compatibility (MIMIC). MIMIC is a model for deposit insurance that mimics the incentives and practices of a private sector, mutual, insurance organisation. The main features of MIMIC are: fully risk‐based premiums, payments by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to the US Treasury Department (the Treasury) for its line of credit and ‘catastrophe insurance’, rebates to banks when the reserve ratio exceeds a risk‐based ceiling, surcharges on banks when the reserve ratio dips below a risk‐based floor, dilution fees on deposit growth to maintain reserve ratio and refunds to banks to maintain reserve ratio when their deposits shrink.

Definitions of pooling effects in insurance companies may convey the impression that the achieved risk reduction effect will be beneficial for policyholders, since typically lower premiums are paid for the same safety level with an increasing number of insureds, or a higher safety level is achieved for a given premium level for all pool members. However, this view is misleading and the purpose of this paper is to reexamine this apparent merit of pooling from the policyholder's perspective.

This is achieved by comparing several valuation approaches for the policyholders' claims using different assumptions of the individual policyholder's ability to replicate the contract's cash flows and claims.

The paper shows that the two considered definitions of risk pooling do not offer insight into the question of whether pooling is actually beneficial for policyholders.

The paper contributes to the literature by extending and combining previous work, focusing on the merits of pooling claims (using the two definitions above) from the policyholder's perspective using different valuation approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the mean-variance capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and downside risk-based CAPM (DR-CAPM) developed by Bawa and Lindenberg (1977), Harlow and Rao (1989), and Estrada (2002) to assess which downside beta better explains expected stock returns. The paper also explores whether investors respond differently to stocks that co-vary with declining market than to those of co-vary with rising market.

The paper uses monthly data of closing prices of stocks listed at the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE). The data cover the period from January 2000 to December 2012. The standard, downside, and upside betas are estimated for different sub-periods,and then,their validity to quantify the risk premium is tested for subsequent sub-periods in a cross sectional regression framework. Though our empirical methodology is similar to that of Fama and MacBeth (1973) for testing the CAPM and the DR-CAPM, our approach to estimate the downside beta is different from earlier studies. In particular, we follow Estrada ' s (2002) suggestions and obtain the correct and unbiased estimation of the downside beta by running the time series regression through origin. The authors carry out the two-pass regression analysis using the generalized method of moment (GMM) in the first pass and the generalized least squares (GLS) estimation method in the second pass.

The results indicate that the mean-variance CAPM shows a negative risk premium for monthly returns of selected stocks. However, the results for the DR-CAPM of Bawa and Lindenberg (1977) and Harlow and Rao (1989) provide evidence of a positive risk premium for the downside beta. In contrast, the DR-CAPM of Estrada (2002) shows a negative risk premium in some sub-periods while the positive premium in the others. By comparing the risk premium for both downside and upside risks in a single-equation framework, the authors show that the stocks that co-vary with a declining market are compensated with a positive premium for bearing the downside risk. Yet, the risk premium for stocks that are negatively correlated with declining market returns is negative for all the three-downside betas in all the examined sub-periods.

The empirical findings of the paper are of great significance for investors for designing effective investment strategies. Specifically, the results help investors to identify an appropriate measure of risk and to construct well-diversified portfolio. The results are also useful for firm managers in capital budgeting decision-making process as they enable them to cost equities appropriately. The results also suggest that the risk-return relationship implied by mean-variance CAPM is negative and therefore this model is not suitable for gauging the risk associated with stocks traded in KSE. Yet, the authors show that DR-CAPM out performs in quantifying the risk premium.

Unlike prior empirical studies, the authors follow Estrada’s (2002) suggestions where downside beta is calculated using regression through origin to find correct and unbiased beta. Departing from the existing literature the authors estimate three different versions of DR-CAPM along with the standard CAPM for comparison purpose. Finally, the authors apply sophisticated econometrics methods that help in lessening the problem of non-synchronous trading and the issue of non-normality of returns distribution.

This study aims to examine short- and long-run effects of specific macroeconomic conditions on risk premium estimates on lending.

Empirical estimates are based on error correction and autoregressive distributed lag models.

The results suggest that, in the short run, inflation expectations, recession expectations and actual inflationary conditions tend to have a significant impact on risk premium estimates; in the long run, however, only inflation expectations and recession expectations are significant in risk premium estimates on lending.

This study examines how specific conditions of uncertainty and expectations influence variability in risk premium estimates on lending in the US economy.

Daniel and Titman (1997) contend that the Fama‐French three‐factor model’s ability to explain cross‐sectional variation in expected returns is a result of characteristics that firms have in common rather than any risk‐based explanation. The primary aim of the current paper is to provide out‐of‐sample tests of the characteristics versus risk factor argument. The main focus of our tests is to examine the intercept terms in Fama‐French regressions, wherein test portfolios are formed by a three‐way sorting procedure on book‐to‐market, size and factor loadings. Our main test focuses on ‘characteristic‐balanced’ portfolio returns of high minus low factor loading portfolios, for different size and book‐to‐market groups. The Fama‐French model predicts that these regression intercepts should be zero while the characteristics model predicts that they should be negative. Generally, despite the short sample period employed, our findings support a risk‐factor interpretation as opposed to a characteristics interpretation. This is particularly so for the HML loading‐based test portfolios. More specifically, we find that: the majority of test portfolios tend to reveal higher returns for higher loadings (while controlling for book‐to‐market and size characteristics); the majority of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are statistically insignificant; for the characteristic‐balanced portfolios, very few of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are significant.

This paper seeks to analyze stylized statistical properties of the recent traded asset CO₂ emission allowances, for spot and futures returns, examining also the relation linking convenience yield and risk premium, for the German European Energy Exchange (EEX) between October 2005 and October 2009.

The study was conducted through empirical estimations of CO₂ allowances risk premium, convenience yield, and their relationships.

Future prices from an ex-post perspective are examined to show evidence for significant negative risk premium, or a positive forward premium. A positive relationship between risk premium and time-to-maturity is found. Both financial concepts are found to be negatively affected by spot price volatility. Convenience yield is positively influenced by CO₂ price, while influencing the risk premium positively.

From a financial perspective, allowances seem to be producing the desired effects in terms of environmental policies, although a lot more remains to be done. The presence of risk premium and convenience yield makes it clear that agents act in this commodity market according to risk consideration. Results change depending on phase and futures contracts used for the determination of both financial terms, indicating that uncertainties over the future of EU-ETS seem to be decreasing.

Previous research has mainly focused on the first phase of the EU-ETS (2005-2007), whereas this paper extends the analysis period here. The paper finds some opposite results compared with previous commodities theories and designs some policy implications, given the results attained.