Search results

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.

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.

Extensive studies have investigated the relation between risk and return in the stock and major asset markets, whereas little studies have been done for housing, particularly the Australian housing market. This study aims to determine the relationship between housing risk and housing return in Australia.

The analysis of this study involves two stages. The first stage is to estimate the presence of volatility clustering effects. Thereafter, the relation between risk and return in the Australian housing market is assessed by using a component generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity-in-mean (C-CARCH-M) model.

The empirical results show that there is a strong positive risk-return relationship in all Australian housing markets. Specifically, comparable results are also evident in all housing markets in various Australian capital cities, reflecting that Australian home buyers, in general, are risk reverse and require a premium for higher risk level. This could be attributed the unique characteristics of the Australian housing market. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that a stronger volatility clustering effect than previously documented in the daily case.

The findings enable more informed and practical investment decision-making regarding the relation between housing return and housing risk.

This paper is the first study to offer empirical evidence of the risk-return relationship in the Australian housing market. Besides, this is the first housing price volatility study that utilizes daily data.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of global financial market uncertainty on the relation between risk and return in G7 stock markets.

Market uncertainty is quantified using a probability-based measure derived from a regime-switching model in which the state transition probabilities are time-varying in response to leading economic indicators. Time variation in the risk return relation is estimated using a GARCH-M model.

While the regime-switching model successfully distinguishes between crisis and normal states, there remains substantial variability through time in the level of uncertainty about which state prevails. Results show that a strong negative relation exists between this uncertainty and the reward-to-variability ratio across all G7 stock markets. This finding is qualitatively consistent at both monthly and weekly horizons.

Extant evidence on the risk-return relation is conflicting. Most papers assume the relation is time constant. Allowing the reward-to-variability ratio to vary through time in response to return regime uncertainty increases the understanding of asset pricing. It also has important implications for asset allocation decisions by investors.

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.

In this chapter, we perform more detailed analyses and present the distribution characteristics and risk-return relationships of accounting-based financial returns (ROA) across different industry contexts and between periods with different economic conditions. We first display the frequency diagrams of the return measure (ROA) and its two components, net income and total assets, that show entirely different contours in the density graphs that must be reconciled. This is partially accomplished by analyzing the skewness, kurtosis, cross-sectional, and longitudinal risk-return characteristics of each of the three variables. The analyses further considers potential effects of accounting manipulation, and different organizational and executive traits, that identifies significant effects on the accounting-based return measures. We find extremely left-skewed return distributions with high negative correlations between the average return and risk measures, which reproduces the “Bowman paradox” as originally conceived. The same analysis is performed on net income and operating cash flows, the latter being less susceptible to accounting manipulation, which should display similar effects even though these performance distributions show positive skewness. We find negative but insignificant cross-sectional risk-return relations that nevertheless reappear in analyses performed within the specific industry contexts. The study further uncovers effects from prevailing economic conditions where left-skewness and kurtosis as well as negative risk-return correlations are much more significant during periods of high economic growth and business expansion where competition is more pronounced.

This chapter outlines the major analytical efforts performed as part of the overarching research project with the aim to investigate the organizational and environmental circumstances around the extreme negatively skewed performance outcomes regularly observed across firms. It presents the collection and treatment of comprehensive European and North American datasets where subsequent analyses reproduce the contours of performance distributions observed in prior empirical studies. Key theoretical perspectives engaged in prior studies of performance data and the implied risk-return relationships are presented and these point to emerging commonalities between empirical findings in the management and finance fields. The results from extended analyses of more fine-grained data from North American manufacturing firms uncover the subtle effects of leadership and structural features, and computational simulations demonstrate how the implied adaptive processes can lead to the empirically observed performance distributions. Finally, the findings from the analytical project activities are set in context and the implications of the observed results are discussed to reach at a final conclusion.

Finance theory such as Merton’s ICAPM suggests that there should be a positive relationship between the expected return and risk. Empirical evidence on this relationship, however, is far from conclusive. Building on the recent econometric research on this topic such as Lundblad (2007) and Hedegaard and Hodrick (2016), we estimate the risk-return relation implied in the ICAPM using a long sample (1962~2016) of daily, weekly, and monthly excess stock returns in Korea. More specifically, we estimate various volatility models including GARCH-M using the overlapping data inference (ODIN) method suggested by Hedegaard and Hodrick (2016), as well as the traditional maximum likelihood estimation methodology. For the full sample period, we fail to find a positive risk-return relationship that is significant and robust. For the subsample period from 1998 to 2016, however, we find a significantly positive risk-return relation for GARCH-M model regardless of return intervals and estimation methods. This result is also robust to using other specifications such as EGARCH-M which includes the leverage effect of the variance process and EGARCH-M-GED whose conditional distribution has fatter tails. Our findings suggest that there is indeed a positive relationship between the expected return and risk in the Korean stock market, at least for the period after 1998.

In view of a disruptive environment, the authors consider theories that explain left-skewed performance outcomes and inverse risk–return relationships where some rationales imply causal dependencies with slightly differing outcomes while others refer to spurious artifacts. These literatures are briefly outlined and dynamic response capabilities introduced as an alternative perspective expressed as strategic responsiveness where commonly observed performance outcomes derive from heterogeneous response capabilities among firms that compete in dynamic environments. Financial performance outcomes are analyzed empirically based on a comprehensive corporate dataset where computational simulations of adaptive strategy making among firms generate comparable outcomes from a simple strategic responsiveness model. The findings demonstrate how diverse adaptive strategy-making processes can generate a substantial part, if not all, of the commonly observed artifacts of firm financial performance. The implications of these results are discussed pointing to propitious approaches of analyzing the impact of dynamic adaptive strategies.

To date, the validity of the empirical tests that employ the mean‐variance approach for testing the risk‐return relationship in the research stream named Bowman’s paradox is inherently unverifiable, and the results cannot be generalized. However, this problem can be solved by developing an econometric model with two fundamental characteristics: first, the use of a time‐series model for each firm, avoiding the traditional cross‐sectional analysis; and, second, the estimation of a model with a single variable (firm’s rate of return), whose expectation and variance are mathematically related according to behavioral theories, forming a heteroskedastic model similar to GARCH (generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity). The application of this methodology for Bowman’s paradox is new, and its main advantage is that it solves the previous criticism of the lack of identification. With this model, we achieve results that agree with behavioral theories and show that these theories can also be carried out with market measures.