DOES IT PAY TO HAVE FAT TAILS? EXAMINING KURTOSIS AND THE CROSSSECTION OF STOCK RETURNS


 Deirdre Kennedy
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 DOES IT PAY TO HAVE FAT TAILS? EXAMINING KURTOSIS AND THE CROSSSECTION OF STOCK RETURNS By Benjamin M. Blau 1, Abdullah Masud 2, and Ryan J. Whitby 3 Abstract: Xiong and Idzorek (2011) show that extremely large price movements, which are rare under a normal distribution, occur approximately 10 times more often than predicted by a normal distribution indicating that the normality assumption required in many asset pricing models is often violated. When examining whether the higher moments of return distributions are priced in stocks, prior research has demonstrated that skewness predicts negative returns. While some studies have investigated the return premium associated with skewness, fewer studies have focused on the relation between kurtosis and future returns. In this paper we attempt to determine whether there is a significant return premium associated with kurtosis. Using a broad sample of stocks 1980 to 2010, we find that the average stock exhibits excess kurtosis and that kurtosis is negatively related to firm size and positively related to volatility and turnover. Further, we show that stocks with high kurtosis have higher raw returns than stocks with low kurtosis. However, when we control for other risk factors that are more common in traditional asset pricing models, the return premium associated with kurtosis vanishes. These results indicate that kurtosis is not priced in stocks. 1 Benjamin M. Blau is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics and Finance at Utah State University, 3565 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah Phone: Fax: Abdullah Masud is a Graduate Student in the Department of Economics and Finance at Utah State University, 3565 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah Ryan J. Whitby is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics and Finance at Utah State University, 3565 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah Phone: Fax: Electronic copy available at:
2 1. INTRODUCTION The presence of bubbles and subsequent reversals in securities markets is a reminder that stock returns tend to be leptokurtic, or have fat tails. That is, extreme events happen more regularly than predicted by a normal distribution. While many asset pricing models assume normality in the return distribution, most evidence suggests that this normality assumption is often violated (see Fama (1965) and Rosenberg (1974)). Almost all asset classes and portfolios have returns that are not normally distributed. Events that are very rare under a normal distribution seem to occur empirically approximately 10 times more often than predicted by a normal distribution (see Xiong and Idzorek (2011)). While the nonnormality of return distributions is a generally accepted empirical result, there is still widespread resistance by both practitioners and academics to models that use nonnormal distributions. This reluctance often stems from the fact that nonnormal asset pricing models can increase estimation error, which leads to additional uncertainty. Nevertheless, understanding how the nonnormality of asset returns affects the pricing of assets is important. While standard portfolio theory assumes that returns are normally distributed, the outcomes associated with fatter tails in the return distribution are similar to those of a distribution with a larger standard deviation. Namely, there is a greater probability of a particular return that is further from the mean in any given time period. If investors perceive that leptokurtic return distributions represent some level of risk that is unaccounted for, then, all else equal, investors may prefer less kurtosis to more kurtosis for a given expected return. Further, assets that increase the kurtosis of a portfolio may not only be less desirable, buy may also have higher expected returns. It is important to note, however, that for kurtosis to be priced, kurtosis must not covary perfectly with volatility or any other risk factor. The main objective of this 2 Electronic copy available at:
3 paper is the determine whether or not kurtosis helps explain the crosssection of returns, especially after accounting for the other known risk factors that influence the crosssection of the returns. In particular, we attempt to identify the presence of a return premium associated with kurtosis. In this study, we ask two simple questions: First, what stockspecific characteristics determine the level of kurtosis? Second, are investors compensated in the form of a return premium for holding stocks that exhibit excess kurtosis? We find that the average stock has a leptokurtic distribution. Additionally, both our univariate and multivariate tests demonstrate that the kurtosis of a stock is negatively related to size and positively related to volatility and turnover. As expected, smaller and more volatile stocks have distributions that are leptokurtic. Results are similar when we examine idiosyncratic kurtosis. In our second set of tests, we examine whether higher returns are associated with higher kurtosis. While stocks with higher kurtosis have higher raw returns, which is indicative of a significant kurtosis return premium, once we control for size, the return premium associated with kurtosis disappears. Thus, although the return distributions of stocks are, on average, leptokurtic, any return premium associated with kurtosis seems to be captured almost entirely by the common negative relation between firm size and future returns. Both theoretical and empirical research has examined the higher moments of return distributions. Harvey and Siddique (2000) develop an asset pricing model that incorporates conditional skewness while Barberis and Huang (2008) model the preferences for skewness and show theoretically that skewness leads to lower future returns. Similar results are found in Mitton and Vorkink (2007). Further, empirical results in Mitton and Vorkink show that retail investors underdiversify in order to obtain greater skewness in their portfolios. Boyer, Mitton, 3
4 and Vorkink (2010) find that expected idiosyncratic skewness and returns are negatively related. Similarly, Zhang (2005) also finds that skewness explains the crosssection of returns. 1 The consensus in the literature suggests that skewness is priced. While most of the prior research examining the nonnormality of return distributions has focused on skewness, other papers have also considered kurtosis. Xiong and Idzorek (2011) examine the effect of skewness and kurtosis on optimized portfolio. Conrad, Dittmar, and Ghysels (2013) examine exante skewness and kurtosis implied through option prices and find both are related to the crosssection of stock returns. Our findings extend this growing stream of literature by showing that kurtosis does not predict higher future returns. Any return premium associated with kurtosis is, in general, unrelated to the crosssection of returns after accounting for firm size. These findings have important implications for investors, fund managers, and analysts that use traditional asset pricing models or focus on meanvariance investment strategies. 2. DATA DESCRIPTION The data used in this analysis comes from two primary sources. From Compustat, we gather annual balance sheet information including assets, liabilities, and total equity. From the universe of stocks available on the Center for Research on Security Prices (CRSP), we obtain trading volume, prices, shares outstanding, etc., and aggregate this data to the yearly level. We also obtain daily returns and daily valueweighted market returns. Using these returns, we estimate a market model by regressing daily returns on valueweighted market returns in order to 1 In other studies that examine higher moments of return distributions, Patton (2004) finds that distributional asymmetries and skewness are advantageous to managers of firms that face shortsale constraints. Further, Harvey, Liechty, Liechty, and Muller (2010) use a bayesian framework to model portfolio selection incorporating higher moments while Ilmanen (2011) investigates the skewness of returns with respect to insurance and lotteries. 4
5 obtain daily residual returns. Using CRSP daily raw returns and residual returns from our market model, we estimate kurtosis in the following way. ( 1) n n n + ( rt r) Kurtosis = 4 ( n 1)( n 2)( n 3) i 1 σ 4 2 3( n 1) ( n 2)( 3) = n (1) r t is either the raw return or the residual return and σ is the standard deviation of either the raw return or the residual return, respectively. We denote the results from estimating equation (1) as total kurtosis when r t is defined as the raw return and idiosyncratic kurtosis when r t is defined as the residual return. We estimate equation (1) for the universe of stocks available on CRSP for each year during the period 1980 to The total number of unique stocks used in the analysis is 10,465. Table 1 reports statistics that describe our sample. Kurt is the estimate for total kurtosis while IdioKurt is the estimate of kurtosis that uses the daily residuals from the market model. Price is the CRSP closing price for each stock at the end of each year. Size is the market capitalization obtained from CRSP. B/M is the booktomarket ratio using the endofyear balance sheet equity from Compustat and market capitalization from CRSP. Turn is the share turnover and is calculated by dividing the annual trading volume by shares outstanding. IdioVolt is the idiosyncratic volatility or the standard deviation of the daily residual returns (residuals from daily market models) for each stock during each year. Beta is obtained by estimating CAPM using CRSP returns. The summary statistics reported in Table 1 are equally weighted by stock. Panel A reports the results when examining all stockyear observations. We find that the average stock has a total kurtosis of and an idiosyncratic kurtosis of A normal distribution has kurtosis equal to 0. These results suggest that the average stock has a return distribution with excess kurtosis suggesting that the common normality assumption required in 5
6 Table 1 Summary Statistics The table reports statistics that describe our sample. Panel A reports the summary statistics for the entire time period ( ). Panels B through D report the statistics for each of the three decades during the sample time period. Kurt is the kurtosis of daily returns calculated for each stock during each year while IdioKurt is the idiosyncratic kurtosis of daily residual returns (residuals from daily market models). Price is the CRSP closing price. Size is the market capitalization from CRSP. B/M is the booktomarket ratio. Turn is the share turnover of the annual volume scaled by shares outstanding. IdioVolt is the idiosyncratic volatility or the standard deviation of the daily residual returns (residuals from daily market models) for each stock during each year. Beta is the CAPM beta during each year using CRSP returns. The summary statistics reported are equallyweighted for each stock. Panel A. All StockYear Observations (N = 10,465) Mean Median Standard Dev. Min Max [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Kurt IdioKurt Price Size B/M Turn IdioVolt Beta ,199,575, ,279, Panel B. StockYear Observations from 1980 to 1989 (N = 3,022) Kurt IdioKurt Price Size B/M Turn IdioVolt Beta ,532, ,052, Panel C. StockYear Observations from 1990 to 1999 (N = 6,507) Kurt IdioKurt Price Size B/M Turn IdioVolt Beta ,100,532, ,805, Panel D. StockYear Observations from 2000 to 2010 (N = 6,877) Kurt IdioKurt ,517,823, ,948,101, ,602,142, ,042,478, ,4602,228, ,873,055, Price Size B/M Turn IdioVolt Beta ,267,998, ,071, ,553,057, , ,492,491,
7 most asset pricing models is violated. The average stock has a share price of $16.38, a market cap of nearly $1.2 billion, a B/M ratio of 0.44, turnover of 13.51, idiosyncratic volatility of 3.97%, and a CAPM beta of Panels B through D report the results for each of the three decades during the sample time period. In panel B, there are 3,022 unique stocks during the subperiod. Again, we find that the average stock has excess kurtosis as the mean Kurt is while the mean IdioKurt is Further, the mean price is $14.91, the mean market cap is $425 million, the mean B/M ratio is 0.57, the mean turnover is 5.96, the mean idiosyncratic volatility is 3.17%, and the mean beta is approximately equal to one. Panel C presents the statistics for 6,507 unique stocks during the period of 1990 to During this subperiod, we find markedly less kurtosis of and idiosyncratic kurtosis of in the average stock. Relative to the panel A, we find that the average stock has a higher price of $18.98, greater market cap, $1.1 billion, a higher B/M ratio of , more turnover, , more idiosyncratic volatility of 4.25%, and a lower beta of Panel D reports the summary statistics for 6,877 unique stocks during the period 2000 to The average stock has total kurtosis of , idiosyncratic kurtosis of , a share price of $18.36, market capitalization of $2.3 billion, a B/M ratio of 0.34, turnover of 17.42, idiosyncratic volatility of 3.99%, and a beta of EMPIRICAL RESULTS In Table 1, we find the presence of excess kurtosis, on average. Given that much of asset pricing theory rests on the assumption of normality in the return distribution, we explore which stockspecific characteristics are related to the level of kurtosis. The first set of tests attempts to identify the characteristics that determine the level of kurtosis. We conduct both univariate and multivariate tests when identifying the determinants of kurtosis. The second set of tests 7
8 examines the effect of kurtosis on the crosssection of returns, which is the main objective of this study. Using familiar methods for calculating future returns, we attempt to determine whether there is a return premium associated with kurtosis. 3.1 Determinants of Kurtosis Univariate Tests We begin by sorting our sample into five portfolios based on both total kurtosis and idiosyncratic kurtosis. We then examine different stock characteristics across each of these portfolios. Portfolios are resorted at the end of each year. We also examine the univariate correlation coefficients between our measures of kurtosis and several stock characteristics. Table 2 reports the results from this analysis. Panel A presents the results when sorting by total kurtosis while panel B shows the results when sorting by idiosyncratic kurtosis. We report share price (Price), market capitalization (Size), total assets (Assets), the booktomarket ratio (B/M), the debttoequity ratio (D/E), share turnover (Turn), idiosyncratic volatility (IdioVolt), and systematic risk (Beta). In columns [1] through [5] of panel A, we find that share prices, market cap, and total assets are decreasing monotonically across increasing kurtosis quintiles. Column [6] reports the difference between extreme quintiles and shows differences in prices, size, and assets are negative and significant. We also find that Pearson correlation and Spearman correlation coefficients are negative and significant. These results indicate that kurtosis is higher for lower priced stocks and stocks with less market capitalization and less assets. We also find that B/M ratios, idiosyncratic volatility, and beta are increasing monotonically across increasing kurtosis quintiles. Differences, reported in column [6], are positive and significant. However, we do not find a significant Pearson correlation coefficient between total kurtosis and the B/M ratio. We also find that share turnover is generally increasing across kurtosis portfolios, although not 8
9 Table 2 Determinants of Kurtosis Univariate Tests The table reports a variety of stock characteristics across quintiles sorted by kurtosis (panel A) and idiosyncratic kurtosis (panel B). Column [6] reports the difference between extreme quintiles while column [7] presents the Pearson correlation coefficients and column [8] reports the Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Price is the CRSP close price. Assets is the assets reported in Compustat (in millions). B/M is the booktomarket ratio. D/E is the debttoequity ratio. Turn is the share turnover. Idiovolt is the idiosyncratic volatility and Beta is the CAPM beta. The pvalues are reported in parentheses in columns [6] through [8]. *,**,*** denote statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. Panel A. Kurtosis Quintiles and Correlation Q I Price Size Assets B/M D/E Turn IdioVolt Beta (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] *** *** 4,086,646,920 2,442,737,900 1,871,065,820 1,458,545,650 1,135,650,4402,950,996,480*** *** 11, , , , , *** *** ** (0.018) (0.631) ** (0.025) (0.903) *** *** *** *** *** *** Spearman Correlation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 9
10 Panel B. Sort by Idiosyncratic Kurtosis Q I (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Price Size Assets B/M D/E Turn IdioVolt Beta Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] *** *** 3,547,477,120 2,394,210,780 1,983,734,110 1,612,644,490 1,456,377,0002,091,100,120*** *** *** *** * (0.054) (0.929) *** (0.002) (0.866) *** *** *** *** *** *** Spearman Correlation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 10
11 monotonically. The correlation coefficients are positive and significant. These findings suggest that kurtosis is higher for stocks with higher B/M ratios, higher share turnover, higher idiosyncratic volatility, and larger betas. We do not find a reliable pattern for D/E ratios across kurtosis quintiles. Panel B reports the results for idiosyncratic kurtosis sorts. Similar to our findings in panel A, share prices, market capitalization, and assets are negatively related to idiosyncratic kurtosis. We also find that B/M ratios, share turnover, idiosyncratic volatility, and beta are directly related to idiosyncratic kurtosis. The univariate results in Table 2 suggest that stocks with leptokurtic return distributions are related to specific stock characteristics like size, prices, volatility, and liquidity. 3.2 Determinants of Kurtosis Multivariate Tests We recognize the need to explore the determinants of kurtosis in a multivariate setting. For instance, the size of a particular stock is likely related to the level of risk and liquidity for a particular stock. Therefore, we estimate the following equation using pooled stockyear observations. Kurt i,t or IdioKurt i,t = β 0 + β 1 Ln(Price i,t ) + β 2 Ln(Size i,t ) + β 3 Ln(Assets i,t ) + β 4 B/M i,t + β 5 D/E i,t + β 6 Turn i,t + β 7 IdioVolt i,t + β 8 Beta i,t + ε i,t (2) The dependent variable is either total kurtosis for stock i during year t or idiosyncratic kurtosis for stock i during year t. The independent variables include the natural log of prices (Ln(Price i,t )), the natural log of size (Ln(Size i,t )), the natural log of assets (Ln(Assets i,t )), the booktomarket ratio (B/M i,t ), the debttoequity ratio (D/E i,t ), the share turnover (Turn i,t ), the idiosyncratic volatility (IdioVolt i,t ), and the CAPM beta (Beta i,t ). The results from estimating equation (2) are reported in Table 3. Panel A reports the results when the dependent variable is 11
12 defined as total kurtosis while panel B presents the results when the dependent variable is defined as idiosyncratic kurtosis. Because of the pooled nature of the data, we estimate an F statistic to determine whether we need to control for fixed effects. The Fstatistic, testing for the presence of fixed effects across years, is (pvalue = 0.000) in panel A. Similarly the F statistic is (pvalue = 0.000) in panel B indicating the need to control for fixed effects. In columns [1] through [4], we report the results while including year fixed effects. We recognize the possibility that our results are affected by the presence of multicollinearity. In unreported tests, we estimate variance inflation factors. For each of our independent variables, the variance inflation factors are well below five suggesting that the significance of our tests is not inflated from multicollinearity. In Table 3, we also report the results using different combinations of independent variables to show how the magnitude of the coefficients changes when other variables are included. The pvalues that are reported are obtained from White (1980) robust standard errors. In panel A column [1], we find that the estimates for Ln(Price), Ln(Size), and Ln(assets) are each negative and significant. These findings are consistent with our univariate tests in the previous subsection. Column [2] shows that both B/M and D/E produce estimates that are statistically close to zero. Column [3] shows that both Turn and IdioVolt produces reliably positive estimates. Column [4] reports the results of the full model. We find that, when including all of the independent variables, Ln(Price), IdioVolt, and Turn produce estimates that are positive and significant while Ln(Size), Ln(Assets), B/M, and Beta produce estimates that are negative and significant. The results in this panel suggest that smaller stocks, both in terms of market cap and total assets, have higher total kurtosis. Further, stocks with higher turnover, higher idiosyncratic volatility, and smaller betas also have higher kurtosis. The relation between 12
13 Table 3 Determinants of Kurtosis Multivariate Tests The table reports the results from estimating the following equation using pooled stockyear data. Kurt i,t or IdioKurt i,t = β 0 + β 1 Ln(Price i,t ) + β 2 Ln(Size i,t ) + β 3 Ln(Assets i,t ) + β 4 B/M i,t + β 5 D/E i,t + β 6 Turn i,t + β 7 IdioVolt i,t + β 8 Beta i,t + ε i,t The dependent variable is either Kurtosis for stock i during year t (panel A)or Idiosyncratic Kurtosis for stock i during year t (panel B). The independent variables include the natural log of prices (Ln(Price i,t )), the natural log of size (Ln(Size i,t )), the natural log of assets (Ln(Assets i,t )), the booktomarket ratio (B/M i,t ), the debttoequity ratio (D/E i,t ), the share turnover (Turn i,t ), the idiosyncratic volatility (IdioVolt i,t ), and the CAPM beta (Beta i,t ). An F statistic reports the presence of fixed effects by year. Therefore in columns [1] through [4] we include year fixed effects. The pvalues obtained from White (1980) robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *,**,*** denote statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. Panel A. Dependent Variable is Kurtosis i,t [1] [2] [3] [4] Intercept Ln(Price i,t ) Ln(Size i,t ) Ln(Assets i,t ) B/M i,t D/E i,t Turn i,t IdioVolt i,t Beta i,t *** *** *** *** *** (0.689) 5.4E6 (0.971) (0.792) *** *** *** *** *** ** (0.038) ** (0.017) 2.9E5 (0.832) *** *** *** Adj. R 2 Fixed Effects
14 Panel B. Dependent Variable is Idiosyncratic Kurtosis i,t [1] [2] [3] [4] Intercept *** *** (0.892) Ln(Price i,t ) *** Ln(Size i,t ) ** (0.017) Ln(Assets i,t ) *** B/M i,t D/E i,t Turn i,t IdioVolt i,t Beta i,t (0.882) 1.6E5 (0.976) *** *** *** *** (0.388) *** (0.002) (0.118) 3.7E5 (0.788) *** *** *** Adj. R 2 Fixed Effects
15 kurtosis and prices, B/M ratios, and D/E ratios depend on the variables that we include in the analysis. Panel B reports the results when defining our dependent variable as idiosyncratic kurtosis. For brevity, we only discuss the differences in these results with respect to the results in the previous panel. The most notable difference is that Ln(Size) produces an estimate that is reliably positive, instead of negative, as in column [1]. In addition, we do not find a significant estimate for B/M. However, according to our analysis in panel B, stocks with fewer assets, higher turnover, higher idiosyncratic volatility, and smaller betas exhibit higher levels of idiosyncratic kurtosis. 3.3 Kurtosis and the CrossSection of Stock Returns The analysis in the two previous subsections was exploratory in nature and attempted to identify stockspecific characteristics that affect the level of kurtosis in the distribution of daily returns. The findings suggest that kurtosis is related to several other characteristics, such as market capitalization, B/M ratios, idiosyncratic volatility, etc., that have shown to have predictability in the crosssection of returns. The main objective of this study is to determine whether kurtosis is priced in the crosssection of stock returns. As mentioned previously, stocks with leptokurtic return distributions may present a certain level of risk that is not captured when examining the standard estimates of volatility and investors holding stocks with excess kurtosis may therefore command a significant return premium. Table 4 reports the results from sorting stocks into five portfolios based on our estimates of kurtosis and then reporting various measures of future returns across each of the kurtosis portfolios. In particular, we sort stocks into quintiles based on the level of kurtosis during a particular year. We then report returns during the next year across each of the portfolios. The 15
16 idea is to determine the profitability of a longshort portfolio, where an investor is potentially long in the portfolio of stocks with the highest kurtosis and short in the portfolio of stocks with the lowest kurtosis. We report future CRSP raw returns, along with three other measures of returns that are obtained from estimating the following equation. R i,t R f,t = α + β 1 (R m,t R f,t ) + β 2 HML t + β 3 SMB t + β 4 UMD t + ε i,t (3) The dependent variable is the difference between the returns for stock i on day t and the risk free rate on day t. The independent variables include the market risk premium (R m,t R f,t ), the highminuslow FamaFrench factor (HML), the smallminusbig FamaFrench factor (SMB), and the upminusdown Carhart momentum factor (UMD). We estimate three variants of equation (3). First, we restrict β 2, β 3, and β 4 to equal zero such that equation (3) is the standard estimation of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). When estimating the CAPM, we obtain the annual estimates of α and denote this measure of future returns as CAPM α. Second, we restrict β 4 to equal zero such that equation (3) is the standard estimation of the FamaFrench 3Factor model. As before, we obtain the annual estimate of α and denote this measure of future returns as FF3F α. Finally, we estimate the full version of equation (3) which is the standard estimation for the FamaFrenchCarhart 4Factor model. The alpha obtained from the full version of the model is denoted as the FF4F α. Table 4 reports CRSP raw returns, CAPM α, FF3F α, and the FF4F α in year t+1 across total kurtosis portfolios (panel A) and idiosyncratic kurtosis portfolios (panel B) that are sorted at the end of year t. The portfolios are resorted each year. Similar to Table 2, columns [1] through [5] report the results across each of the five portfolios. Column [6] reports the difference between extreme quintiles, which is the longshort return. Columns [7] and [8] report the Pearson Correlation and Spearman Correlation coefficients, respectively. 16
17 In the first row of panel A, we find that raw returns are increasing monotonically across increasing kurtosis portfolios. The difference between extreme portfolios in column [6] is (pvalue = 0.000). These results suggest that stocks with high kurtosis have larger nextyear returns compared to stocks with low kurtosis. The return premium on this longshort strategy is nearly 4% per year. The correlation coefficients in columns [6] and [7] seem to confirm the assertion that kurtosis is priced in stocks. In the second row of panel A, we find that CAPM α does not increase monotonically across kurtosis portfolios. However, the CAPM α is significantly larger in quintile 5 than in quintile 1 as the difference in column [6] is (pvalue = 0.000). In economic terms, the alpha obtained in the portfolio with the highest kurtosis (column [5]) is 1.05%. Said differently, stocks with the highest kurtosis outperform the market by only 1.05%. Interestingly, stocks with the least kurtosis outperform the market by 54 basis points annually. These results seem to suggest that while our results are statistically significant, the return premium associated with kurtosis is economically modest. In the third and fourth row of panel A, we find that FF3Fα and the FF4Fα appear to be unrelated to kurtosis. In fact, the differences between extreme quintiles in both rows are statistically close to zero. These findings indicate that, after controlling for the FamaFrench factors and the Carhart momentum factor, the kurtosis return premium documented in the first row of the panel disappears. Panel B shows the results when we sort stocks into portfolios based on idiosyncratic kurtosis. As before, we find that raw returns are increasing monotonically across idiosyncratic kurtosis quintiles. Similar to our findings in the second row of panel A, we find that the CAPM α is 1.04% in the portfolio of stocks with the highest kurtosis (column [5]). However, when examining the third and fourth rows of panel B, we find that any return premium associated with 17
18 Table 4 Kurtosis and the Crosssection of Stock Returns The table reports various measures of returns in year t+1 across quintiles sorted by Kurtosis during year t in panel A and Idiosyncratic Kurtosis during year t in panel B. We report CRSP raw returns (Raw Return), alphas obtained from a capital asset pricing model (CAPM α), alphas from a FamaFrench threefactor model (FF3F α), and alphas from a FamaFrenchCarhart fourfactor model (FF4F α). In column [6], we report the difference between extreme quintiles along with corresponding pvalues in parentheses that are obtained from ttests testing for statistical significance. Columns [7] and [8] report the Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlation between Kurtosis and our future return measures. *,**,*** denote statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. Panel A. Kurtosis Quintiles Q I Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] *** ** (0.025) *** *** (0.112) (0.908) (0.175) (0.942) Panel B. Idiosyncratic Kurtosis Quintiles Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α *** *** (0.146) (0.208) (0.415) ** (0.019) (0.941) (0.920) Spearman Correlation (0.188) *** ** (0.011) (0.991) ** (0.015) * (0.091) (0.339) (0.204) 18
19 idiosyncratic kurtosis disappears when controlling for the HML, SMB, and UMD factors. Our findings suggest that forming longshort portfolios based on annual estimates of kurtosis does not provide excess returns for investors. Table 5 replicates the analysis in Table 4 for the different subperiods described above. In particular, we test for a return premium associated with kurtosis in each of the three decades analyzed in this study. Panels A through C report the results when forming portfolios based on total kurtosis during the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s, respectively. Panels D through E present the results when forming portfolios based on idiosyncratic kurtosis during each of the three decades. The conclusions that we are able to draw in the latter three panels are qualitatively similar to those that we draw in the first three panels. Therefore, for brevity, we only discuss our findings in panels A through C. Panel A shows that raw returns are neither increasing nor decreasing across increasing total kurtosis portfolios during the 1980s. While the correlation coefficients in columns [7] and [8] are positive and significant, the difference between extreme portfolios is not reliably different from zero. Similar results are found when examining the CAPM α in the second row of panel A. We note, however, that the difference between extreme portfolios is positive and marginally significant (difference = , pvalue = 0.091). However, this difference only represents a 25 basis point return premium in excess of the market. We do not find a reliable relation between kurtosis and either the FF3F α or the FF4F α in the third and fourth rows of panel A. Similar results are found in the previous table. Panel B presents the results during the 1990s. Similar to our findings in the previous panel, we do not find a significant return premium associated with total kurtosis. In fact, column 19
20 Table 5 Kurtosis and the Crosssection of Stock Returns by SubPeriods The table reports various measures of returns in year t+1 across quintiles sorted by Kurtosis during year t and Idiosyncratic Kurtosis during year t. We report CRSP raw returns (Raw Return), alphas obtained from a capital asset pricing model (CAPM α), alphas from a FamaFrench threefactor model (FF3F α), and alphas from a FamaFrenchCarhart fourfactor model (FF4F α). In column [6], we report the difference between extreme quintiles along with corresponding pvalues in parentheses that are obtained from ttests testing for statistical significance. Columns [7] and [8] report the Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlation between Kurtosis and our future return measures. In Panels A through C we report the results using total kurtosis quintiles during each of the three decades. Panels D through F show the results using idiosyncratic kurtosis during each of the three decades. *,**,*** denote statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. Panel A. Kurtosis Quintiles Q I Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ** (0.305) (0.035) * ** (0.091) (0.035) ** (0.462) (0.037) (0.881) (0.427) Panel B. Kurtosis Quintiles Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α (0.884) (0.399) (0.399) (0.436) (0.333) ** (0.029) (0.584) (0.648) Spearman Correlation *** *** (0.003) (0.496) ** (0.039) *** (0.119) (0.739) (0.231) 20
21 Panel C. Kurtosis Quintiles Q I (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] *** (0.154) *** *** (0.003) * (0.094) (0.802) (0.154) (0.976) Panel D. Idiosyncratic Kurtosis Quintiles Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α (0.384) (0.214) (0.268) (0.785) ** (0.032) (0.241) ** (0.010) (0.363) Spearman Correlation *** *** *** *** (0.002) (0.284) (0.590) (0.169) *** (0.004) 21
22 Panel E. Idiosyncratic Kurtosis Quintiles Q I (Low) Q II Q III Q IV Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α Q V (High) Q VQ I Pearson Correlation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (0.791) (0.139) ** (0.417) (0.026) (0.263) (0.529) (0.260) (0.587) Panel F. Idiosyncratic Kurtosis Quintiles Raw Return CAPM α FF3F α FF4F α *** *** (0.115) (0.192) (0.868) * (0.066) (0.887) (0.956) Spearman Correlation *** (0.119) (0.952) (0.416) (0.105) (0.858) (0.111) (0.505) 22
23 [6] suggests that the differences between extreme portfolios are all statistically close to zero. These results hold regardless of how future returns are defined. Panel C reports the analysis for the period 2000 to In the first row of panel C, we find a positive monotonic relation between total kurtosis and future raw returns. The difference between the extreme portfolios is 7.20% (pvalue = 0.000). These findings suggest that a significant return premium is associated with kurtosis. In the second row of panel C, we also find a positive and monotonic relation between kurtosis and the CAPM α. The difference between extreme portfolios is again positive and significant. However, in the third and fourth rows of panel C, we do not find a positive relation between total kurtosis and future returns. In fact, the difference between extreme portfolios is negative and significant when examining FF3Fα. While the difference is negative in the fourth row, it is not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. These results suggest that the positive return premium associated with total kurtosis that is documented when focusing on raw returns disappears when controlling for other known factors that affect the crosssection of returns. We are able to draw similar conclusions when examining idiosyncratic kurtosis in panels D through F. Our results that suggest that kurtosis does not predict the crosssection of stock returns in Table 4 are robust to these different subperiods. 3.4 Kurtosis and the CrossSection of Stock Returns: Additional Tests In this final section, we continue to explore the relation between kurtosis in the distribution of stock returns and future returns. Tables 4 and 5 provide some evidence that nextyear s raw returns are directly related to this year s level of kurtosis. However, when we control for other factors in the CAPM, the FamaFrench 3Factor Model, and the FamaFrenchCarhart 4Factor Model, the relation disappears. The purpose of this final section is to determine 23
24 whether stockspecific characteristics reduce the return premium associated with kurtosis. In particular, we estimate the following equation using pooled stockyear data. Returns i,t+1 = β 0 + β 1 Beta i,t + β 2 Ln(Size i,t ) + β 3 B/M i,t + β 4 Returns i,t1 + β 5 Turn i,t + β 6 IdioVolt i,t + β 7 Kurt i,t or IdioKurt i,t +ε i,t (4) The dependent variable is the CRSP raw return for stock i during year t+1. The independent variables include the CAPM beta (Beta i,t ), the natural log of size (Ln(Size i,t )), the booktomarket ratio (B/M i,t ), the CRSP returns for stock i during year t1 (Returns i,t1 ). These stockspecific characteristics capture the potential explanatory power associated with the common risk factors described in equation (3). We also include the idiosyncratic volatility (IdioVolt i,t ), and share turnover (Turn i,t ) as additional independent variables. The variables of interest are the kurtosis of daily returns (Kurt i,t ) or the idiosyncratic kurtosis of daily returns (IdioKurt i,t ). Table 6 reports the results from estimating equation (4). As before, an Fstatistic testing for the presence of year fixed effects is significantly large indicating the need to control for fixed effects. Therefore, we report our results while including year fixed effects. In panel A, we report the results when the variable of interest is total kurtosis. Focusing primarily on the stockspecific characteristics that correspond with the factors in the Fama FrenchCarhart 4Factor Model, we estimate separate regressions while including kurtosis and each of stockspecific characteristics that correspond with the 4 factors independently. For instance, column [1] shows the results when Kurt and Beta are included as the only two independent variables. Column [2] presents the results when Kurt and Ln(Size) are included, and so on. Column [5] reports the results when including all of the stockspecific characteristics that correspond with the 4 factors while column [6] presents the results from the full model. 24
25 Column [1] shows that both Beta and Kurt produce reliably positive estimates. The positive estimate for Beta supports the main implications of the CAPM discussed in a broad stream of literature. The positive estimate for Kurt suggests that, after controlling for Beta, kurtosis still has explanatory power with respect to the crosssection of returns. However, when we control for Ln(Size), both the estimates for Ln(Size) and Kurt are negative and significant. The negative estimate for Ln(Size) is consistent with the size effect discussed in Banz (1981) and Fama and French (1992). The negative estimate for Kurt suggests that, when controlling for market cap, the return premium associated with kurtosis disappears. In fact, when controlling for size, the kurtosis return premium becomes negative and significant. Given our results in Table 2 that show that market capitalization is negatively related to kurtosis, the results in column [2] of this table indicate that any observable direct relation between kurtosis and future raw returns is driven primarily by the size effect. Column [3] shows that, when controlling only for the B/M ratio, both B/M and Kurt produce positive estimates. The positive estimate for B/M supports the findings in Fama and French (1992) while the positive estimate for Kurt indicates that, when only holding B/M ratios constant, kurtosis produces a positive and significant return premium. Column [4] presents the results when including both last year s return and kurtosis. The estimate on past returns is negative and significant and supports the idea of return reversals discussed in Lehmann (1990) and Jegadeesh (1990). The positive estimate for Kurt suggests that, while controlling for past returns, kurtosis explains the crosssection of returns. In column [5], we report the results when including the stockspecific characteristics associated with the 4 factors described in equation (3) as well as kurtosis. A few of these results are noteworthy. First, Beta, Ln(Size), and Return i,t1 produce estimates that are similar to those in columns [1], [2], and [4]. However, the estimate 25
26 Table 6 Kurtosis and the Crosssection of Stock Returns The table reports the results from estimating the following equation using pooled stockyear data. Returns i,t+1 = β 0 + β 1 Beta i,t + β 2 Ln(Size i,t ) + β 3 B/M i,t + β 4 Returns i,t1 + β 5 Turn i,t + β 6 IdioVolt i,t + β 7 Kurt i,t or IdioKurt i,t +ε i,t The dependent variable is the CRSP raw return for stock i during year t+1. The independent variable include the CAPM beta (Beta i,t ), the natural log of size (Ln(Size i,t )), the booktomarket ratio (B/M i,t ), the CRSP returns for stock i during year t1 (Returns i,t1 ), the idiosyncratic volatility (IdioVolt i,t ), and the share turnover (Turn i,t ). The variables of interest is the kurtosis of daily returns (Kurt i,t ) or the idiosyncratic kurtosis of daily returns (IdioKurt i,t ). We report the results when using total kurtosis in panel A and idiosyncratic kurtosis in panel B. An Fstatistic reports the presence of fixed effects by year. Therefore in columns [1] through [6] we include year fixed effects. Columns [7] and [8] report the results without controlling for year fixed effects. The pvalues obtained from White (1980) robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *,**,*** denote statistical significance at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. Panel A. Independent Variable of Interest is Kurtosis [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Intercept Beta i,t Ln(Size i,t ) B/M i,t Return i,t1 IdioVolt i,t Turn i,t Kurt i,t *** ** (0.046) *** *** *** *** *** * (0.085) *** *** *** *** (0.005) *** *** *** (0.851) *** (0.329) *** (0.722) *** (0.987) *** *** *** (0.008) *** Adj. R 2 Fixed Effects
27 Panel B. Independent Variable of Interest is Idiosyncratic Kurtosis [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Intercept *** *** *** *** Beta i,t * (0.053) Ln(Size i,t ) B/M i,t Return i,t1 IdioVolt i,t Turn i,t IdioKurt i,t *** *** (0.455) * (0.084) *** *** *** (0.002) *** *** *** (0.858) *** (0.855) *** (0.705) *** (0.993) *** *** ** (0.013) *** Adj. R 2 Fixed Effects
28 for B/M is statistically close to zero. Second, and perhaps more important, when we control for each of these variables, the estimate for Kurt is not reliably different from zero. Given our findings in column [2] of this table, these results suggest that when controlling for several stockspecific characteristics and, in particular the market capitalization of a particular stock, the return premium associated with kurtosis disappears. In column [6] we extend the model in column [5] by including both idiosyncratic volatility and share turnover. The positive estimate for idiosyncratic volatility supports the notion that riskier stocks have greater returns while the negative estimate for share turnover indicates that stocks with less liquidity have higher returns. When controlling for these variables, the estimate for Kurt is negative and significant instead of positive and significant. Again, these results suggest that after controlling for a variety of explanatory variables, stocks with high kurtosis underperform stocks with low kurtosis. Further, panel B reports the results when we include idiosyncratic kurtosis as the independent variable of interest. Again, we are able to draw the same conclusions as the estimates for idiosyncratic kurtosis in columns [2], [5], and [6] are nonpositive. Combined with the results in Tables 4 and 5, our findings in Table 6 seems to suggest that any observable return premium associated with kurtosis is driven primarily by the size effect (Banz, 1981; Fama and French, 1992). 4. CONCLUSION While most traditional asset pricing models assume normality in the distribution of stock returns, much of the empirical evidence suggests that return distributions are nonnormal. In fact, Xiong and Idzorek (2011) show that extremely large price movements, which are rare under a normal distribution, occur approximately 10 times more often than predicted by a normal 28
29 distribution. When examining whether the higher moments of return distributions are priced in stocks, prior research has demonstrated that skewness in the return distribution is negatively related to future returns (Mitton and Vorkink, 2007; Barberis and Huang, 2008; and Boyer, Mitton, and Vorkink, 2010). While the literature has investigated the return premium associated with skewness, fewer studies have focused the relation between kurtosis and future returns. In this paper we attempt to determine whether there is a significant return premium associated with kurtosis. If investors perceive that stocks with excess kurtosis represent risk that is unaccounted for in other traditional risk factors, then investors holding stocks with higher levels of kurtosis should command a significant return premium. This paper shows that the return distribution of the average stock has excess kurtosis. We show that this high level of kurtosis is robust across a thirtyyear time period. We also show that kurtosis is negatively related to firm size and positively related to volatility and turnover. Because the literature has shown that firm size, volatility, and turnover predict future returns, it is important that we control for these stockspecific characteristics in a multivariate setting. We show that while stocks with high kurtosis have higher raw returns than stocks with low kurtosis, when controlling for various risk factors that are used in more common asset pricing models, we do not find a significant return premium associated with kurtosis. In other tests, we show that the direct relation between raw returns and kurtosis disappears once we control for firm size. These findings indicate that any return premium associated with kurtosis is entirely captured by the common return premium associated with firm size (Banz, 1981; Fama and French, 1992). 29
Optimal DebttoEquity Ratios and Stock Returns
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 32014 Optimal DebttoEquity Ratios and Stock Returns Courtney D. Winn Utah State University Follow this
More informationA TwoFactor Asset Pricing Model and the Fat Tail Distribution of Firm Sizes
A TwoFactor Asset Pricing Model and the Fat Tail Distribution of Firm Sizes Y. Malevergne 1,2 & D. Sornette 1 1 ETH Zurich, Chair of Entrepreneurial Risks Switzerland 2 EMLyon Business School France
More informationGAMBLING PREFERENCES, OPTIONS MARKETS, AND VOLATILITY
GAMBLING PREFERENCES, OPTIONS MARKETS, AND VOLATILITY Benjamin M. Blau a, T. Boone Bowles b, and Ryan J. Whitby c Abstract: This study examines whether the gambling behavior of investors affect volume
More informationJournal of Financial Economics
Journal of Financial Economics 99 (2011) 427 446 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Financial Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries
More informationDo Implied Volatilities Predict Stock Returns?
Do Implied Volatilities Predict Stock Returns? Manuel Ammann, Michael Verhofen and Stephan Süss University of St. Gallen Abstract Using a complete sample of US equity options, we find a positive, highly
More informationAsymmetric Volatility and the CrossSection of Returns: Is Implied Market Volatility a Risk Factor?
Asymmetric Volatility and the CrossSection of Returns: Is Implied Market Volatility a Risk Factor? R. Jared Delisle James S. Doran David R. Peterson Florida State University Draft: June 6, 2009 Acknowledgements:
More informationBetting Against Beta in the Indian Market
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD INDIA Betting Against Beta in the Indian Market Sobhesh Kumar Agarwalla, Joshy Jacob, Jayanth R. Varma & Ellapulli Vasudevan W.P. No. 20140701 July 2014 The main
More informationWe are motivated to test
James X. Xiong is head of quantitative research at Morningstar Investment Management in Chicago, IL. james.xiong@morningstar.com Thomas M. Idzorek is the president of Morningstar Investment Management
More informationTrading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors BRAD M. BARBER TERRANCE ODEAN Presenter: HsuanChi Chen ABSTRACT Individual investors who hold common
More informationThe Role of Shorting, Firm Size, and Time on Market Anomalies
The Role of Shorting, Firm Size, and Time on Market Anomalies RONEN ISRAEL AND TOBIAS J. MOSKOWITZ Updated Version: February 2011 Abstract We examine the role of shorting, firm size, and time on the profitability
More informationInternet Appendix to Who Gambles In The Stock Market?
Internet Appendix to Who Gambles In The Stock Market? In this appendix, I present background material and results from additional tests to further support the main results reported in the paper. A. Profile
More informationTHE NUMBER OF TRADES AND STOCK RETURNS
THE NUMBER OF TRADES AND STOCK RETURNS Yi Tang * and An Yan Current version: March 2013 Abstract In the paper, we study the predictive power of number of weekly trades on expost stock returns. A higher
More informationAppendices with Supplementary Materials for CAPM for Estimating Cost of Equity Capital: Interpreting the Empirical Evidence
Appendices with Supplementary Materials for CAPM for Estimating Cost of Equity Capital: Interpreting the Empirical Evidence This document contains supplementary material to the paper titled CAPM for estimating
More informationEVALUATION OF THE PAIRS TRADING STRATEGY IN THE CANADIAN MARKET
EVALUATION OF THE PAIRS TRADING STRATEGY IN THE CANADIAN MARKET By Doris SiyYap PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Approval
More informationK. V. Kovalevskii ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE SKILLS OF TWO MUTUAL FUND MANAGERS
K. V. Kovalevskii Graduate Student Durham University Business School ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE SKILLS OF TWO MUTUAL FUND MANAGERS Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and compare the
More informationInternet Appendix to. Why does the Option to Stock Volume Ratio Predict Stock Returns? Li Ge, TseChun Lin, and Neil D. Pearson.
Internet Appendix to Why does the Option to Stock Volume Ratio Predict Stock Returns? Li Ge, TseChun Lin, and Neil D. Pearson August 9, 2015 This Internet Appendix provides additional empirical results
More informationAnkur Pareek Rutgers School of Business
Yale ICF Working Paper No. 0919 First version: August 2009 Institutional Investors Investment Durations and Stock Return Anomalies: Momentum, Reversal, Accruals, Share Issuance and R&D Increases Martijn
More informationStocks with Extreme Past Returns: Lotteries or Insurance?
Stocks with Extreme Past Returns: Lotteries or Insurance? Alexander Barinov Terry College of Business University of Georgia Email: abarinov@terry.uga.edu http://abarinov.myweb.uga.edu/ This version: June
More informationINVESTMENTS Classes 8 & 9: The Equity Market Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns. Spring 2003
15.433 INVESTMENTS Classes 8 & 9: The Equity Market Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns Spring 2003 Introduction Equities are common stocks, representing ownership shares of a corporation. Two important
More informationHOW WEB SEARCH ACTIVITY EXERT INFLUENCE ON STOCK TRADING ACROSS MARKET STATES?
HOW WEB SEARCH ACTIVITY EXERT INFLUENCE ON STOCK TRADING ACROSS MARKET STATES? TzuLun Huang, Department of Finance, National Sun Yatsen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C., spirit840000@hotmail.com
More informationInformed trading in options market and stock return predictability
Informed trading in options market and stock return predictability Abstract Prior research has highlighted the importance of two distinct types of informed trading in options market: trading on price direction
More information2. Capital Asset pricing Model
2. Capital Asset pricing Model Dr. Youchang Wu WS 2007 Asset Management Youchang Wu 1 Efficient frontier in the presence of a riskfree asset Asset Management Youchang Wu 2 Capital market line When a riskfree
More informationInternet Appendix to Picking Winners? Investment Consultants Recommendations of Fund Managers
Internet Appendix to Picking Winners? Investment Consultants Recommendations of Fund Managers TIM JENKINSON, HOWARD JONES, and JOSE VICENTE MARTINEZ * This Internet Appendix includes the following additional
More informationInstitutional Trading, Brokerage Commissions, and Information Production around Stock Splits
Institutional Trading, Brokerage Commissions, and Information Production around Stock Splits Thomas J. Chemmanur Boston College Gang Hu Babson College Jiekun Huang Boston College First Version: September
More informationFamaFrench and Small Company Cost of Equity Calculations. This article appeared in the March 1997 issue of Business Valuation Review.
FamaFrench and Small Company Cost of Equity Calculations This article appeared in the March 1997 issue of Business Valuation Review. Michael Annin, CFA Senior Consultant Ibbotson Associates 225 N. Michigan
More informationAsian Economic and Financial Review THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCREASES AND STOCK RETURNS
Asian Economic and Financial Review journal homepage: http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5002 THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCREASES AND STOCK RETURNS Jung Fang Liu 1  Nicholas Rueilin Lee 2 *  YihBey Lin
More informationChapter 5. Conditional CAPM. 5.1 Conditional CAPM: Theory. 5.1.1 Risk According to the CAPM. The CAPM is not a perfect model of expected returns.
Chapter 5 Conditional CAPM 5.1 Conditional CAPM: Theory 5.1.1 Risk According to the CAPM The CAPM is not a perfect model of expected returns. In the 40+ years of its history, many systematic deviations
More informationIs momentum really momentum?
Is momentum really momentum? Robert NovyMarx Abstract Momentum is primarily driven by firms performance 12 to seven months prior to portfolio formation, not by a tendency of rising and falling stocks
More informationFinancial Intermediaries and the CrossSection of Asset Returns
Financial Intermediaries and the CrossSection of Asset Returns Tobias Adrian  Federal Reserve Bank of New York 1 Erkko Etula  Goldman Sachs Tyler Muir  Kellogg School of Management May, 2012 1 The
More informationPortfolio Performance Measures
Portfolio Performance Measures Objective: Evaluation of active portfolio management. A performance measure is useful, for example, in ranking the performance of mutual funds. Active portfolio managers
More informationDiscussion of Momentum and Autocorrelation in Stock Returns
Discussion of Momentum and Autocorrelation in Stock Returns Joseph Chen University of Southern California Harrison Hong Stanford University Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) document individual stock momentum:
More informationTilted Portfolios, Hedge Funds, and Portable Alpha
MAY 2006 Tilted Portfolios, Hedge Funds, and Portable Alpha EUGENE F. FAMA AND KENNETH R. FRENCH Many of Dimensional Fund Advisors clients tilt their portfolios toward small and value stocks. Relative
More informationStock Returns and Equity Premium Evidence Using Dividend Price Ratios and Dividend Yields in Malaysia
Stock Returns and Equity Premium Evidence Using Dividend Price Ratios and Dividend Yields in Malaysia By David E. Allen 1 and Imbarine Bujang 1 1 School of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Edith Cowan
More informationStock Options as Lotteries
Stock Options as Lotteries Brian H. Boyer and Keith Vorkink 1 This Version: September 14, 2010 1 We acknowledge financial support from the Harold F. and Madelyn Ruth Silver Fund, and Intel Corporation.
More informationThe Equity Risk Premium, the Liquidity Premium, and Other Market Premiums. What is the Equity Risk Premium?
The Equity Risk, the, and Other Market s Roger G. Ibbotson Professor, Yale School of Management Canadian Investment Review Investment Innovation Conference Bermuda November 2011 1 What is the Equity Risk?
More informationOnline appendix to paper Downside Market Risk of Carry Trades
Online appendix to paper Downside Market Risk of Carry Trades A1. SUBSAMPLE OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES I study a subsample of developed countries separately for two reasons. First, some of the emerging countries
More informationWhat Level of Incentive Fees Are Hedge Fund Investors Actually Paying?
What Level of Incentive Fees Are Hedge Fund Investors Actually Paying? Abstract Longonly investors remove the effects of beta when analyzing performance. Why shouldn t long/short equity hedge fund investors
More informationOptionimplied Betas and Cross Section of Stock Returns
Optionimplied Betas and Cross Section of Stock Returns Richard D. F. Harris and Qiao Fang This Version: September 2014 ABSTRACT On the basis of Buss and Vilkov (2012), we further compare different optionimplied
More informationRisk Budgeting: Concept, Interpretation and Applications
Risk Budgeting: Concept, Interpretation and Applications Northfield Research Conference 005 Eddie Qian, PhD, CFA Senior Portfolio Manager 60 Franklin Street Boston, MA 00 (67) 439637 7538 8//005 The Concept
More informationCAN INVESTORS PROFIT FROM THE PROPHETS? CONSENSUS ANALYST RECOMMENDATIONS AND STOCK RETURNS
CAN INVESTORS PROFIT FROM THE PROPHETS? CONSENSUS ANALYST RECOMMENDATIONS AND STOCK RETURNS Brad Barber Graduate School of Management University of California, Davis Reuven Lehavy Haas School of Business
More informationA Test Of The M&M Capital Structure Theories Richard H. Fosberg, William Paterson University, USA
A Test Of The M&M Capital Structure Theories Richard H. Fosberg, William Paterson University, USA ABSTRACT Modigliani and Miller (1958, 1963) predict two very specific relationships between firm value
More informationABACUS ANALYTICS. Equity Factors and Portfolio Management: Alpha Generation Versus Risk Control
50 Washington Street Suite 605 Norwalk, Connecticut 06854 info@abacusanalytics.com 203.956.6460 fax 203.956.6462 ABACUS ANALYTICS Equity actors and Portfolio Management: Alpha Generation Versus Risk Control
More informationEmpirical Evidence on Capital Investment, Growth Options, and Security Returns
Empirical Evidence on Capital Investment, Growth Options, and Security Returns Christopher W. Anderson and Luis GarciaFeijóo * ABSTRACT Growth in capital expenditures conditions subsequent classification
More informationHeterogeneous Beliefs and The Optionimplied Volatility Smile
Heterogeneous Beliefs and The Optionimplied Volatility Smile Geoffrey C. Friesen University of NebraskaLincoln gfriesen2@unl.edu (402) 4722334 Yi Zhang* Prairie View A&M University yizhang@pvamu.edu
More informationBooktoMarket Equity, Distress Risk, and Stock Returns
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LVII, NO. 5 OCTOBER 2002 BooktoMarket Equity, Distress Risk, and Stock Returns JOHN M. GRIFFIN and MICHAEL L. LEMMON* ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship between
More informationB.3. Robustness: alternative betas estimation
Appendix B. Additional empirical results and robustness tests This Appendix contains additional empirical results and robustness tests. B.1. Sharpe ratios of betasorted portfolios Fig. B1 plots the Sharpe
More informationThe Stock Market s Reaction to Accounting Information: The Case of the Latin American Integrated Market. Abstract
The Stock Market s Reaction to Accounting Information: The Case of the Latin American Integrated Market Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the stock market s reaction to quarterly financial
More informationNew Zealand mutual funds: measuring performance and persistence in performance
Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 347 363 New Zealand mutual funds: measuring performance and persistence in performance Rob Bauer a,rogér Otten b, Alireza Tourani Rad c a ABP Investments and Limburg Institute
More informationStock Return Momentum and Investor Fund Choice
Stock Return Momentum and Investor Fund Choice TRAVIS SAPP and ASHISH TIWARI* Journal of Investment Management, forthcoming Keywords: Mutual fund selection; stock return momentum; investor behavior; determinants
More informationThe Relationship between the Optionimplied Volatility Smile, Stock Returns and Heterogeneous Beliefs
University of Nebraska  Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska  Lincoln Finance Department Faculty Publications Finance Department 712015 The Relationship between the Optionimplied Volatility
More informationAGENCY CONFLICTS IN DELEGATED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM NAMESAKE MUTUAL FUNDS. Abstract
The Journal of Financial Research Vol. XXX, No. 4 Pages 473 494 Winter 2007 AGENCY CONFLICTS IN DELEGATED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM NAMESAKE MUTUAL FUNDS Stephen P. Ferris and Xuemin (Sterling)
More informationBetting against Beta or Demand for Lottery
Betting against Beta or Demand for Lottery Turan G. Bali Stephen J. Brown Scott Murray Yi Tang This version: November 2014 Abstract Frazzini and Pedersen (2014) document that a betting against beta strategy
More informationWhy are Some Diversified U.S. Equity Funds Less Diversified Than Others? A Study on the Industry Concentration of Mutual Funds
Why are Some Diversified U.S. Equity unds Less Diversified Than Others? A Study on the Industry Concentration of Mutual unds Binying Liu Advisor: Matthew C. Harding Department of Economics Stanford University
More informationCash Holdings and Mutual Fund Performance. Online Appendix
Cash Holdings and Mutual Fund Performance Online Appendix Mikhail Simutin Abstract This online appendix shows robustness to alternative definitions of abnormal cash holdings, studies the relation between
More informationTrading Strategies and Financial Models. Alexander Barinov
Trading Strategies and Financial Models Alexander Barinov This version: July 2014 c 2014 Alexander Barinov Contents 1 Topics in Market Efficiency 17 1.1 EMH and Expected Returns.......................
More informationThe CrossSection of Volatility and Expected Returns
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXI, NO. 1 FEBRUARY 2006 The CrossSection of Volatility and Expected Returns ANDREW ANG, ROBERT J. HODRICK, YUHANG XING, and XIAOYAN ZHANG ABSTRACT We examine the pricing of
More informationReferencedependent preferences and the riskreturn tradeoff: Internet appendix
Referencedependent preferences and the riskreturn tradeoff: Internet appendix Huijun Wang a, Jinghua Yan b, and Jianfeng Yu c,d a University of Delaware, Lerner College of Business and Economics, Department
More informationDo the asset pricing factors predict future economy growth? An Australian study. Bin Liu Amalia Di Iorio
Do the asset pricing factors predict future economy growth? An Australian study. Bin Liu Amalia Di Iorio Abstract In this paper we examine whether past returns of the market portfolio (MKT), the size portfolio
More informationVariance Risk Premium and Cross Section of Stock Returns
Variance Risk Premium and Cross Section of Stock Returns Bing Han and Yi Zhou This Version: December 2011 Abstract We use equity option prices and high frequency stock prices to estimate stock s variance
More informationForm of the government and Investment Sensitivity to Stock Price
Form of the government and Investment Sensitivity to Stock Price Abstract One of the important functions of the stock market is to produce information through stock prices. Specifically, stock market aggregates
More informationAbsolute Strength: Exploring Momentum in Stock Returns
Absolute Strength: Exploring Momentum in Stock Returns Huseyin Gulen Krannert School of Management Purdue University Ralitsa Petkova Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University March
More informationWhat Does Individual Option Volatility Smirk Tell Us About Future Equity Returns?
What Does Individual Option Volatility Smirk Tell Us About Future Equity Returns? Yuhang Xing, Xiaoyan Zhang and Rui Zhao * * Xing, yxing@rice.edu, Jones School of Management, Rice University, 6100 Main
More informationA Review of Cross Sectional Regression for Financial Data You should already know this material from previous study
A Review of Cross Sectional Regression for Financial Data You should already know this material from previous study But I will offer a review, with a focus on issues which arise in finance 1 TYPES OF FINANCIAL
More informationA Tale of Two Anomalies: Higher Returns of LowRisk Stocks and Return Seasonality. Christopher Fiore * Atanu Saha ** Abstract
This article is forthcoming in The Financial Review. A Tale of Two Anomalies: Higher Returns of LowRisk Stocks and Return Seasonality Christopher Fiore * Atanu Saha ** Abstract Prior studies have shown
More informationA Panel Data Analysis of Corporate Attributes and Stock Prices for Indian Manufacturing Sector
Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, ISSN 15486583 November 2013, Vol. 9, No. 11, 15191525 D DAVID PUBLISHING A Panel Data Analysis of Corporate Attributes and Stock Prices for Indian Manufacturing
More informationThe Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium
The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium Robert NovyMarx June, 2012 Abstract Profitability, measured by gross profitstoassets, has roughly the same power as booktomarket predicting
More informationCorporate Income Tax and Stock Returns
Corporate Income Tax and Stock Returns [Preliminary Draft] Alexander Schiller September 9, 2015 Abstract This paper examines the implications of corporate income taxes for the crosssection of stock returns.
More informationA FiveFactor Asset Pricing Model. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French * Abstract
First draft: June 2013 This draft: November 2013 A FiveFactor Asset Pricing Model Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French * Abstract A fivefactor model directed at capturing the size, value, profitability,
More informationDividends and Momentum
WORKING PAPER Dividends and Momentum Owain ap Gwilym, Andrew Clare, James Seaton & Stephen Thomas October 2008 ISSN Centre for Asset Management Research Cass Business School City University 106 Bunhill
More informationMutual fund flows and investor returns: An empirical examination of fund investor timing ability
University of Nebraska  Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska  Lincoln CBA Faculty Publications Business Administration, College of 912007 Mutual fund flows and investor returns: An empirical
More informationWhat Drives the Performance of US Convertible Bond Funds?
What Drives the Performance of US Convertible Bond Funds? Manuel Ammann, Axel Kind, and Ralf Seiz May 2006 Abstract This paper examines the return characteristics of US mutual funds investing primarily
More informationQuantitative Stock Selection 1. Introduction
Global Asset Allocation and Stock Selection Campbell R. Harvey 1. Introduction Research coauthored with Dana Achour Greg Hopkins Clive Lang 1 1. Introduction Issue Two decisions are important: Asset Allocation
More informationValue, momentum, and shortterm interest rates
Value, momentum, and shortterm interest rates Paulo Maio 1 Pedro SantaClara 2 First version: July 2011 This version: December 2011 3 1 Hanken School of Economics. Email: paulofmaio@gmail.com. 2 Millennium
More informationPerformance of Hedge Funds in the European Market
Master Thesis in Finance Spring 2012 Performance of Hedge Funds in the European Market Authors: Amanda Kolobaric Supervisor: Jens Forssbaeck Parisa Khatabakhsh ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to investigate
More informationExpected Skewness and Momentum
Expected Skewness and Momentum Heiko Jacobs, Tobias Regele and Martin Weber May 2015 Online appendix attached Abstract Motivated by the timeseries insights of Daniel and Moskowitz (2014), we investigate
More informationThe Effect of Option Transaction Costs on Informed Trading in the Option Market around Earnings Announcements
The Effect of Option Transaction Costs on Informed Trading in the Option Market around Earnings Announcements Suresh Govindaraj Department of Accounting & Information Systems Rutgers Business School Rutgers
More informationLiquidity Commonality and Pricing in UK Equities
Liquidity Commonality and Pricing in UK Equities Jason Foran*, Mark C. Hutchinson** and Niall O Sullivan*** January 2015 Forthcoming in Research in International Business and Finance Abstract We investigate
More informationDo Liquidity and Idiosyncratic Risk Matter?: Evidence from the European Mutual Fund Market
Do Liquidity and Idiosyncratic Risk Matter?: Evidence from the European Mutual Fund Market Javier VidalGarcía * Complutense University of Madrid Marta Vidal Complutense University of Madrid December 2012
More informationA Behavioral Economics Exploration into the Volatility Anomaly *
Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance, Japan, Public Policy Review, Vol.9, No.3, September 2013 457 A Behavioral Economics Exploration into the Volatility Anomaly * The NUCB Graduate School Equity
More informationDo IndustrySpecific Performance Measures Predict Returns? The Case of SameStore Sales. Halla Yang March 16, 2007
Do IndustrySpecific Performance Measures Predict Returns? The Case of SameStore Sales. Halla Yang March 16, 2007 Introduction Each industry has its own natural performance metrics. Revenuepassenger
More informationHybrid Tail Risk and Expected Stock Returns: When Does the Tail Wag the Dog?
Hybrid Tail Risk and Expected Stock Returns: When Does the Tail Wag the Dog? Turan G. Bali, a Nusret Cakici, b and Robert F. Whitelaw c* ABSTRACT We introduce a new, hybrid measure of stock return tail
More informationBenchmarking LowVolatility Strategies
Benchmarking LowVolatility Strategies David Blitz* Head Quantitative Equity Research Robeco Asset Management Pim van Vliet, PhD** Portfolio Manager Quantitative Equity Robeco Asset Management forthcoming
More informationReal Estate Risk Exposure of Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts
Real Estate Risk Exposure of Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts MingLong Lee * Department of Finance National Yunlin University of Science and Technology Touliu, Yunlin 640 Taiwan MingTe Lee Department
More informationInvestor Expectations and the Volatility Puzzle in the Japanese Stock Market
Investor Expectations and the Volatility Puzzle in the Japanese Stock Market Toru Yamada and Manabu Nagawatari Abstract Contrary to reasonable expectations regarding highrisk highreturn, it is observed
More informationOne of the MM theorem assumptions, trading frictionless, is the starting point in this
V. Conclusion One of the MM theorem assumptions, trading frictionless, is the starting point in this study. In the U.S., Banerjee, Gatchev, and Spindt (2007) provide evidence that the NYSE commission rate
More informationSensex Realized Volatility Index
Sensex Realized Volatility Index Introduction: Volatility modelling has traditionally relied on complex econometric procedures in order to accommodate the inherent latent character of volatility. Realized
More informationIlliquidity frictions and asset pricing anomalies
Illiquidity frictions and asset pricing anomalies Björn Hagströmer a, Björn Hansson b, Birger Nilsson,b a Stockholm University, School of Business, S10691 Stockholm, Sweden b Department of Economics and
More informationExtracting Portable Alphas From Equity LongShort Hedge Funds. William Fung* David A. Hsieh**
Forthcoming, Journal of Investment Management Extracting Portable Alphas From Equity LongShort Hedge Funds By William Fung* David A. Hsieh** *Centre for Hedge Fund Research and Education, London Business
More informationThe Case For Passive Investing!
The Case For Passive Investing! Aswath Damodaran Aswath Damodaran! 1! The Mechanics of Indexing! Fully indexed fund: An index fund attempts to replicate a market index. It is relatively simple to create,
More informationTrading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LV, NO. 2 APRIL 2000 Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors BRAD M. BARBER and TERRANCE ODEAN* ABSTRACT Individual
More informationInstitutional Trading, Brokerage Commissions, and Information Production around Stock Splits
Institutional Trading, Brokerage Commissions, and Information Production around Stock Splits Thomas J. Chemmanur Boston College Gang Hu Babson College Jiekun Huang Boston College First Version: September
More informationHigh Idiosyncratic Volatility and Low Returns: A Prospect Theory Based Explanation
High Idiosyncratic Volatility and Low Returns: A Prospect Theory Based Explanation Ajay Bhootra California State University, Fullerton Jungshik Hur Louisiana Tech Abstract The welldocumented negative
More informationDoes the Stock Market React to Unexpected Inflation Differently Across the Business Cycle?
Does the Stock Market React to Unexpected Inflation Differently Across the Business Cycle? Chao Wei 1 April 24, 2009 Abstract I find that nominal equity returns respond to unexpected inflation more negatively
More informationLIQUIDITY AND ASSET PRICING. Evidence for the London Stock Exchange
LIQUIDITY AND ASSET PRICING Evidence for the London Stock Exchange Timo Hubers (358022) Bachelor thesis Bachelor Bedrijfseconomie Tilburg University May 2012 Supervisor: M. Nie MSc Table of Contents Chapter
More informationDoes the alternative threefactor model explain momentum anomaly better in G12 countries?
Does the alternative threefactor model explain momentum anomaly better in G12 countries? Steve Fan University of Wisconsin Whitewater Linda Yu University of Wisconsin Whitewater ABSTRACT This study constructs
More informationYao Zheng University of New Orleans. Eric Osmer University of New Orleans
ABSTRACT The pricing of China Region ETFs  an empirical analysis Yao Zheng University of New Orleans Eric Osmer University of New Orleans Using a sample of exchangetraded funds (ETFs) that focus on investing
More informationMarket Efficiency and Behavioral Finance. Chapter 12
Market Efficiency and Behavioral Finance Chapter 12 Market Efficiency if stock prices reflect firm performance, should we be able to predict them? if prices were to be predictable, that would create the
More informationCan Investors Profit from the Prophets? Security Analyst Recommendations and Stock Returns
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LVI, NO. 2 APRIL 2001 Can Investors Profit from the Prophets? Security Analyst Recommendations and Stock Returns BRAD BARBER, REUVEN LEHAVY, MAUREEN McNICHOLS, and BRETT TRUEMAN*
More informationUncertainty in Second Moments: Implications for Portfolio Allocation
Uncertainty in Second Moments: Implications for Portfolio Allocation David Daewhan Cho SUNY at Buffalo, School of Management September 2003 Abstract This paper investigates the uncertainty in variance
More informationThe impact of security analyst recommendations upon the trading of mutual funds
The impact of security analyst recommendations upon the trading of mutual funds, There exists a substantial divide between the empirical and survey evidence regarding the influence of sellside analyst
More information