Search results

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new and improved version of arbitrage pricing theory (APT), namely, downside APT (D-APT) using the concepts of factors’ downside beta and semi-variance.

This study includes 163 stocks traded on the Malaysian stock market and uses eight macroeconomic variables as the dependent and independent variables to investigate the relationship between the adjusted returns and the downside factors’ betas over the whole period 1990-2010, and sub-periods 1990-1998 and 1999-2010. It proposes a new version of the APT, namely, the D-APT to replace two deficient measures of factor's beta and variance with more efficient measures of factors’ downside betas and semi-variance to improve and dispel the APT deficiency.

The paper finds that the pricing restrictions of the D-APT, in the context of an unrestricted linear factor model, cannot be rejected over the sample period. This means that all of the identified factors are able to price stock returns in the D-APT model. The robustness control model supports the results reported for the D-APT as well. In addition, all of the empirical tests provide support the D-APT as a new asset pricing model, especially during a crisis.

It may be worthwhile explaining the autocorrelation limitation between variables when applying the D-APT.

The framework can be useful to investors, portfolio managers, and economists in predicting expected stock returns driven by macroeconomic and financial variables. Moreover, the results are important to corporate managers who undertake the cost of capital computations, fund managers who make investment decisions and, investors who assess the performance of managed funds.

This paper is the first study to apply the concepts of semi-variance and downside beta in the conventional APT model to propose a new model, namely, the D-APT.

It is widely accepted that equity return volatility increases more following negative shocks rather than positive shocks. However, much of value‐at‐risk (VaR) analysis relies on the assumption that returns are normally distributed (a symmetric distribution). This article considers the effect of asymmetries on the evaluation and accuracy of VaR by comparing estimates based on various models.

The application of weather derivatives in hedging crop yield risk is gaining more interest. However, the further development of weather derivatives – particularly exchange-traded – in the agricultural sector has been impeded by concerns over their hedging performance. The purpose of this paper is to develop a new framework to derive the optimal hedging strategy and evaluate hedging effectiveness.

This framework incorporates a stochastic temperature model, a crop yield model, a risk-neutral pricing method and a profit optimization procedure. Based on a large number of simulated scenarios, the authors study crop yield hedge for a future year. The authors allow the hedger to choose from different types of exchange-traded weather derivatives, and examine the impact of various factors on the optimal hedging strategy.

The analysis shows that hedging objective, pricing method and geographical location of the hedged exposure all play important roles in choosing the best hedging strategy and assessing hedging effectiveness.

This framework is forward-looking, because it focusses on the crop yield hedge for a future year rather than on the historical hedging effectiveness often studied in literature. It utilizes the most up-to-date information related to temperature and crop yield, and hence produces a hedging strategy which is more relevant to the year under consideration.

The purpose of this paper is to provide the modified measures of risk-adjusted performance evaluation of Malaysian mutual funds using the downside risk concepts, and promote the ability of managers and investors in making logical decisions under the market asymmetry condition.

This study focusses on the performance evaluation of Malaysian mutual funds using eight modified measures of Sharpe, Treynor, M2, Jensen’s α, information ratio (IR), MSR, SPI, and leverage factor. These modified measures use the downside systematic risk and semi-standard deviation instead of systematic risk and conventional standard deviation, respectively, to evaluate the performance of Malaysian mutual funds over the period 2000-2011.

The results indicate that the conventional measures of performance evaluation do not have a crucial influence on the relative evaluation of mutual funds. Three modified measures of Sharpe, Treynor, and M2 have a high correlation with the conventional Sharpe measure and can be used instead of the conventional Sharpe measure. Since, two modified measures of Treynor and M2 display a high rank correlation coefficient with the conventional Treynor measure, they can be replaced with this traditional measure. In addition, two modified IR and MSR measures along with the modified SPI and conventional SPI show very high rank correlation coefficients in relation to each other. The results also document a modified leverage factor less than one for all funds. It can be concluded that the strategy of un-levering the investor’s holding must be followed.

The empirical evidence of this study can be utilized as inputs in the process of decision-making by different types of investors who are interested in participating especially in Malaysian stock market and generally in global stock market under the market asymmetry condition.

The contribution of this study is to modify five measures of M2, IR, MSR, FPI, and leverage factor in the downside risk framework which is a work on a rather under-researched area.

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 paper investigates the risk incurred in UK property investment by the major investing institutions. The historic variability of investment returns from property is compared with that from long dated British government bonds (gilts) and ordinary shares (equities) using data from the JLW Property Index.1 A variety of definitions of risk are examined in order to assess the relative risk of property, considered both in isolation and as an integral part of the overall institutional portfolio. The investigation concludes that, since the late 1960s, property has involved significantly less risk than either of the two alternative investments.

This paper aims to evaluate the risk‐adjusted performance of the management styles of Malaysian mutual funds using nine modified performance evaluation measures generated by the maximum drawdown risk measure (M‐DRM) based on the modern portfolio theory. The purpose is to report the findings in a manner which is realizable by the average investors and portfolio managers.

This paper evaluates the performance of more than 400 Malaysian mutual funds using risk‐adjusted returns over the two sub‐periods of 2000‐2005 and 2006‐2011. The M‐DRM, as a different measure from downside risk, is applied to improve nine risk‐adjusted performance measures of Sortino, Treynor, M‐squared, Jensen's alpha, information ratio (IR), MSR, upside partial ration (UPR), FPI, and leverage factor. It proposes a new single‐factor model to test the maximum drawdown beta and alpha in the M‐DRM framework.

The evidence clearly indicates that the replacement framework in terms of MDB, the maximum drawdown beta, and the maximum drawdown CAPM can be replaced by the conventional frameworks in terms of MVB, beta, and the CAPM and also MSB, downside beta, and D‐CAPM for modifying nine performance evaluation measures from the management styles of Malaysian mutual funds.

The research evidence reported in this paper can be applied as input in the process of decision making by small and average investors and portfolio managers who are seeking the possibility of participating in the global stock market through mutual funds.

This paper is the first study to estimate a new regression model in the M‐DRM framework to evaluate the performance of Malaysian mutual funds. In addition, it proposes nine modified performance evaluation measures in the M‐DRM framework for the first time.

This paper aims to investigate patterns in UK stock returns related to downside risk, with particular focus on stock returns during financial crises.

First, stocks are sorted into five quintile portfolios based on the relevant beta values (classic beta, downside beta and upside beta, calculated by the moving window approach). Second, patterns of portfolio returns are examined during various sub-periods. Finally, predictive powers of beta and downside beta are examined.

The downside risk is observed to have a significant positive impact on contemporaneous stock returns and a negative impact on future returns in general. In contrast, an inverse relationship between risk and return is observed when stocks are sorted by beta, contrary to the classic literature. UK stock returns exhibit clear time sensitivity, especially during financial crises.

This paper focuses on the impact of the downside risk on UK stock returns, assessed via a comprehensive sub-period analysis. This paper fills the gap in the existing literature, in which very few studies examine the time sensitivity in relation to the downside risk and the risk-return anomaly in the UK stock market using a long sample period.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the risk and return characteristics as well as the allocation of mean‐variance (MV) and downside risk (DR) optimized portfolios of international real estate stock markets and to discuss implications for portfolio management.

The analysis focuses on real estate markets only and examines the appropriateness of the Markowitz approach based on MV optimization in comparison to the DR framework suggested by Estrada. Therefore, the two frameworks are presented before the properties of the return distributions are analyzed. Afterwards, the risk and return characteristics as well as the allocation of the efficient portfolios in both frameworks and the divergences are analyzed.

Because of non‐normally distributed returns, negative skewness, and probably non‐quadratic utility functions of investors, MV optimization is not appropriate and the alternative approach by Estrada has its merit compared with other DR frameworks. Furthermore, MV‐efficient and DR‐efficient portfolio allocation differ, as shown by a similarity index. Summarizing, MV optimization is inherent with misleading results and DR optimization shows stronger out‐of‐sample performance – at least during time periods characterized by high market volatility and financial market turmoil.

This study provides some interesting and valuable insights into the DR of international securitized real estate portfolios and the limitations for portfolio management based on MV optimization.

With risk defined as the possibility of deviation in the results from the expected goals, business process reengineering (BPR) initiatives clearly involve risk taking. However, due to the high expected returns of such efforts, the acceptable risk levels of BPR will tend to be greater than those of less ambitious projects. This research reports the development of a tool to quantitatively estimate the potential risk level of a BPR effort before an organization commits its resources to that effort. The underlying research employed a survey of BPR‐experienced organizations to collect assessment information in order to build a BPR risk estimation model. The developed tool uses triangular fuzzy numbers to approximate the degree of success/failure of proposed BPR initiatives. The tool can be applied by any organization contemplating BPR, thus giving such organizations a heretofore unavailable estimate of the risk level of proposed BPR efforts. Validation was performed based upon an 18‐month BPR project conducted at the Missouri Lottery.