LIQUIDITY AND ASSET PRICING. Evidence for the London Stock Exchange


 Marylou Bradley
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 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
2 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction... 3 Chapter 2: Literature overview... 5 Chapter 3: Model specification... 9 Chapter 4: Data and empirical results Data Empirical results CAPM CAPM plus liquidity factors CAPM plus liquidity and FamaFrench factors Second stage regressions Chapter 5: Conclusions Chapter 6: References
3 Chapter 1: Introduction This paper studies the relationship between asset prices and liquidity. This introduction first introduces the hypothesis studied in this paper. Next the concept of liquidity will be explained, together with a deeper motivation of the hypothesis. As covered in chapter two, there have been many studies proving that there exists a relationship between asset prices and liquidity and therefore that liquidity is priced. This paper studies this relationship for stocks listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The aim of this study is to investigate whether liquidity is priced on the LSE. The first hypothesis, therefore, is that there exists a relationship between liquidity and asset prices. For the second hypothesis it is necessary to explain the concept of liquidity better. Liquidity can be the costs one expects to incur when trading a share for example. That is, a brokerage fee or the costs of finding a seller or buyer. It can also be the costs of selling to a market maker, when no counterparty is available. The market maker asks a premium for bearing the risk until a buyer is found. Information asymmetry can also cause illiquidity. The counterparty could know specific private information about a stock, for example he knows that earnings are misstated, which could lead to losses. So, when an investor expects higher costs, meaning lower liquidity, he demands a higher return, which lowers the price. The second hypothesis therefore states that a higher illiquidity increases the return. Liquidity has been the subject of a lot of studies. Interestingly, there are also a lot of different measures for liquidity. This paper uses the bidask spread to approximate for the illiquidity of a stock. If the liquidity of a stock is lower, it is expected to be more difficult to trade. The hypotheses are tested for stocks listed on the London Stock Exchange for the period between October 1986 and December Equally weighted portfolios are formed to reduce noise in the regression analysis. This formation is done twice. The stocks are sorted on size using market value and they are sorted on liquidity using the bidask spread. The paper starts with the Capital Asset Pricing model, extending it first with the liquidity factor and finally extending it with the Fama and French (1993) factors. 3
4 The results of the regression analyses support the hypothesis that there is a relationship between liquidity and asset prices. There is not much evidence that this is also true for stocks sorted on size. The coefficients of the liquidity factor are positive, supporting the second hypothesis that the return increases when liquidity decreases. An increase in the bidask spread decreases liquidity and thus increases the return. The second stage regressions of the final model, including the liquidity and FamaFrench factors, offer no conclusive evidence. The fit of the model for liquiditysized portfolios is relatively low and none of the betas are significant, but the fit of the model for sizebased portfolios is high. This paper proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 gives a literature overview of past research concerning asset pricing and liquidity. Chapter 3 specifies the used model and gives an interpretation. Chapter 4 contains the data specification and regression analyses. Finally, chapter 5 discusses the results and offers concluding remarks. 4
5 Chapter 2: Literature overview Amihud and Mendelson (1986) looked for a relationship between the bidask spread and the expected asset returns. They proposed that the expected asset returns are increasing in the bidask spread. They use riskneutral investors who take transaction costs into account when buying and selling securities. So the individual investor values the future transaction costs, which will be incurred because of the security. Then the present value of these future transaction costs is the price discount of the security due illiquidity. They also include a clientele effect. Investors have different holding periods and therefore value the impact of transaction costs differently. Investors, who tend to hold the assets for a longer period, require a lower perperiod return than investors who hold stocks for a short period. Amihud and Mendelson tested two hypotheses; expected asset return is an increasing function of illiquidity costs and the relationship between expected asset return and illiquidity costs is concave. They tested these hypotheses using data from NYSE and AMEX stocks during Their data reject the alternative hypotheses, so the hypotheses are accepted. Also, they find evidence of the size effect. The capitalization of a firm has an effect on the liquidity of a stock. Stocks from firms with a higher market capitalization are less costly to trade. Eleswarapu (1997) studied a longer period. He used the same the bidask spread as a measure for liquidity as Amihud and Mendelson, but employed the Fama MacBeth (1973) method for the crosssection estimation. He regressed the stock return on the stock s beta, relative spread and size. The relative spread is found to be significant for all months, whereas the beta is only significant in January and the size is found to be insignificant for every month. This raises the question about whether seasonality is a component of liquidity. Amihud (2002), discussed later in this paragraph, also studies this issue. Datar, Naik and Radcliffe (1998) used average stock turnover rate (number of shares traded divided by number of shares outstanding) to approximate for liquidity instead of the bidask spread, because it is difficult to obtain data about the bidask spread for a longer period of time and because Petersen and Fialkowski (1994) found it is not a good proxy for actual transaction costs. The 5
6 average holding period of the stock, a reciprocal of stock turnover, is an indicator for the liquidity of a stock. Investors tend to hold illiquid stocks for a longer period of time, which increases the holding period and thus decreases the stock turnover rate. Their dataset consists of data of all nonfinancial firms listed on the NYSE from 1962 till They used the FamaMacBeth (1973) method for estimating the crosssection of stock returns. The data support the hypothesis that stock returns are strongly negatively related to their turnover rates. This confirms the theory that illiquidity leads to a higher return. Additionally, the turnover rate stays significant after controlling for beta, size, bookmarketratio and the January effect. So, in this study the January effect is rejected; the turnover rate was significant throughout the year. Amihud (2002) proposes that liquidity can predict future returns. He states that high illiquidity today is predictive of high illiquidity in the next period. High expected illiquidity for the next period implies a high required return, which leads to lower asset prices today. He uses an illiquidity measure that is related to the price impact coefficient (Kyle, 1985), ILLIQ. ILLIQ, the daily ratio of absolute stock return to its dollar volume, is calculated by R /(P * VOL), where R is the daily return, P is the closing daily price and VOL is the number of shares traded for that day. ILLIQ is then averaged for each stock over a year to obtain the yearly stock s ILLIQ. This measure is then used in a crosssection regression of stock returns for NYSE stocks during on their previousyear ILLIQ and controlling variables: beta, size, volatility, dividend yield and past returns. The results confirm that ILLIQ has a positive and significant effect on stock returns. There is no seasonality component, because this effect is significant for all months, not just January. He further examines the time series effect of marketwide changes in stock liquidity. He uses the average of a stock s ILLIQ, AILLIQ, to test two hypotheses; expected stock return for the next period is an increasing function of illiquidity as expected in the current period and an unexpected rise in illiquidity in the current period leads to lower stock prices in the same period. The results support the hypotheses. Average stock excess return is an increasing function of lagged AILLIQ and is a decreasing function of unexpected AILLIQ. He also finds evidence that the effect of increased illiquidity 6
7 is stronger for smaller firms due to small firms being less liquid, consisted with the theory that liquid stocks are more attractive when liquidity worsens. Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) find evidence that market wide liquidity is important for pricing assets. They propose that the sensitivity of stock returns to market wide liquidity should be reflected in a premium. When stocks are more sensitive to market wide liquidity, i.e. have a higher exposure to market liquidity shocks, they should earn higher expected returns. For the liquidity measure they use the coefficient of the factor daily dollar volume, based on the observation by Campbell, Grossman and Wang (1993) that the coefficient capturing the change in stock price for a given trading volume in a regression of a stock s daily return on its signed lagged dollar volume is more negative for stocks with lower liquidity. They built the following model: ( ), where is the excess return of stock i on day d and is the daily dollar volume. measures liquidity, stocks with a more negative value for are perceived to be less liquid. The average of the individual stock s is the monthly market s liquidity,. Then the liquidity measure is calculated by taken the residual from an AR1 model of. The regression coefficient of this measure,, is a stock s exposure to market wide liquidity. Their dataset contains stocks listed on NYSE, AMEX and Nasdaq during If liquidity risk were priced, it would mean that the return of a stock should be increasing in its liquidity beta. They indeed find that the expected return is an increasing function of a stock s sensitivity to market wide liquidity, which indicates that liquidity risk is priced. Acharya and Pedersen (2005) have developed a liquidityadjusted capital asset pricing model (LCAPM) incorporating some of the former mentioned liquidity measures as well as new measure, the covariance between the illiquidity of a stock with the market return. They use three liquidity betas next to the market beta, and. They proposed the following model: ( ) ( ) ( ), 7
8 where ( ) ( ), ( ), ( ) ( ) ( ) and ( ). ( ) ( ) The model states that the required excess return depends on the risk free rate, expected illiquidity costs and the four betas. Just as in the CAPM the return on an asset increases with the market beta, the covariance between asset s return and the market return. measures the effect that return increases when the covariance between an asset s illiquidity and market illiquidity increases. Investors require a higher return for an asset that is illiquid when the market is also illiquid, so will generally be positive. measures the covariance between the return of an asset and the marked illiquidity. This beta is usually negative, because an investor is willing to accept a lower return for an asset, which has higher returns in the event that the market is illiquid. measures the covariance between the illiquidity of an asset and the market return. This beta is also usually negative, because investors will be willing to accept a lower return when a asset is liquid when the market offers a low return. The dataset consists of the daily CRSP returns and volume for NYSE/AMEX stocks during The four betas are estimated from the monthly data. The results show that the market beta,, is higher for illiquid stocks. is higher, and are more negative for illiquid stocks. In comparison with the CAPM, they find that the liquidityadjusted CAPM has a higher explanatory power. Roll and Subrahmanyam (2010) study the skewness of liquidity over time. They use the endofday closing bidask spread of stocks in the CRSP database from 1993 onwards. The find that the stock bidask spread is increasingly rightskewed, especially in recent years. The results hold when accounting for differences in firm size, trading volume, price and exchanges. This phenomenon can be explained by information asymmetries, as crosssection analysis indicates that there is a relationship between liquidity skewness and information proxies, such as institutional holdings and analyst following. 8
9 Chapter 3: Model specification This chapter explains the measure used to approximate liquidity and the model used in the crosssectional regressions of the next chapter. This paper uses the bidask spread as a measure for liquidity. The bidask spread is the difference between the bid price and the asking price. As such, it measures the transaction costs of trading an asset. A higher bidask spread thus means higher costs, so liquidity decreases in the bidask spread. The asking price and bid price data are collected on the end of each month. The bidask spread is then calculated. The model that will be used to test the hypothesis is based on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) by Sharpe (1964) and Lintner (1965). It is a single factor model and can be written down as the following equation: ( ) ( ( ), where is the return of the portfolio, the risk free rate and the return of the market. measures the systematic risk. A positive (negative) beta means that the portfolio will have a higher (lower) return than the market, when the market goes up, and a lower (higher) return than the market, when the market goes down. So, according to the CAPM, expected return depends on the risk free rate, the market risk premium ( ) and the amount of systematic risk. The CAPM has some basic assumptions. All investors have a homogenous expectation of the market return and all have access to the same information. There are no taxation or transaction costs. Markets are in equilibrium and perfectly efficient. There are no arbitrage opportunities. For a long time it was regarded as an excellent model to predict asset returns. However, research by Fama and French (1993) showed that their threefactor model did a better job at predicting asset returns by adding a size factor and a booktomarket factor. The CAPM is then extended with a liquidity factor, specifically the bidask spread specified in the previous section. So the equation of the model becomes: ( ) ( ( ) ( ), 9
10 where is the marketwide liquidity, the average of the bidask spreads of all stocks, and the bidask spread of portfolio i. then measures the change in return due to marketwide liquidity and the portion of the risk attributed to the expected liquidity. So, according to the second hypothesis either or both of the liquidity factors should increase when liquidity decreases, because they are calculated using the bidask spread. This means that and should be positive betas. As said before, it is common to include the Fama and French (1993) factors to models trying to explain asset prices. Including these factors improves the predicting capability of the model. These factors are the small minus big (SMB) factor and the high minus low (HML) factor. The SMB factor is included to control for size; everything else equal a small company should have lower earnings on assets than a big company. The HML factor is included to control for the booktomarket equity effect; a low booktomarket means that the company is valued more than that its assets are worth in the books and vice versa. The final equation of the model then should be: ( ) ( ( ) ( ), where and are calculated by forming 6 portfolios based on size and booktomarket ratio (BE/ME). The stocks are first sorted on market value. The cutoff is at 70%, so two groups are formed: small and big. Next, the stocks are again sorted, but this time on their booktomarket ratio. The cutoffs are at 40% and 60%, resulting in three groups: low, medium and high. These groups are now paired in order to form 6 portfolios. Then the small size portfolios are subtracted from the big size portfolios for and the lowest BE/ME ratio portfolios are subtracted from the highest BE/ME portfolios for. That is, is calculated by taking the difference of the average of small portfolios (1/3*(S/L+S/M+S/H)) and the average of big portfolios (B/L+B/M+B/H). is calculated by taking the difference of the average of high booktomarket portfolios (S/H+B/H) and the average of the low booktomarket portfolios (S/L+B/L). This leads to being mostly free of the booktomarket factor with respect to returns and being mostly free of the size factor. 10
11 Chapter 4: Data and empirical results The first section describes the data. The second section describes the regression analyses and discusses the results. 4.1 Data The data used in the regression consists of all stocks listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) during the period October 1986 and December These data are obtained from Datastream. A total number of 4340 stocks were listed on the LSE during this period. However, the bid and ask price statistics are not available for all these stocks. The first month has data on 414 stocks and the last month has data on 1514 stocks regarding the bid and ask price. Some months, specifically during , have around 2100 stocks with bid and ask price data. The statistics obtained from Datastream are the monthly return index, bid price, ask price and market value. Because the return index starts for each stock at 100 in the first month listed in the dataset, these indexes cannot be readily compared with each other. For example, in a random month the return index of one stock could be 350 (indicating that the return in that month is 350 times as high in comparison to the return in the month that the stock first appeared) and of another stock To obtain the monthly return, these return indexes are recalculated to show a percentage, that is, the return index of a stock of, say, March 1990 is subtracted from the return index of April 1990 and then divided by the return index of March The market return is obtained by taking the weighted average of these returns of all stocks in a month. The bidask spread is calculated by subtracting the bid price from the asking price. The risk free rate is obtained from Fama trough CRSP Monthly Treasury Fama Risk Free Rates. The Fama and French factors, and, are downloaded from Kenneth French s website. Portfolios are needed for the regression itself, because using the returns of the individual stocks creates a lot of noise in the regression. Two different sets of portfolios will be created, one sorted on size (market value) and the other sorted on liquidity (bidask spread). The stocks are divided in 10 equally weighted 11
12 portfolios. In effect, the regressions on the three different models will each be run twice, once for the sizesorted portfolios and once for portfolios sorted on liquidity. The average number of stocks in each portfolio amounts to 148 stocks, while the lowest number of stocks in a portfolio is 42 stocks and the highest number of stocks is 218. Table 1 gives an overview of the variables of the sizesorted portfolios and Table 2 gives an overview of the variables of the liquiditysorted portfolios. Table 1 The mean and standard deviation for the return and bidask spread of portfolios sorted on size for the months 10/ /12/2011 Portfolio mean return st.dev. return mean spread st.dev. spread
13 Table 2 The mean and standard deviation for the return and bidask spread of portfolios sorted on liquidity for the months 10/ /12/2011 Portfolio mean return st.dev. return mean spread st.dev. spread The mean bidask spread of sizebased portfolios is in accordance with economic theory, that is, stocks in the smaller size portfolios are more difficult to trade and therefore have a higher bidask spread. The mean return, however, is lower for the smaller size stocks. This is in contrast with the economic intuition that the return is higher for the smaller size stocks. Looking at the standard deviation of the return it is possible that this is caused by the relatively short span of Portfolios sorted on liquidity show, naturally, an increase in the bidask spread. The returns of these portfolios do not indicate that the return is dependent on the bidask spread. 13
14 4.2 Empirical results This section tests the three models: (1) CAPM, (2) CAPM with a liquidity factor and (3) CAPM with a liquidity factor and the FamaFrench factors. The size and liquidity sorted portfolio returns are regressed on each model. For the final model, second stage regressions on both the portfolios will be run. That is, the average return per portfolio will be regressed on the five betas found in the first regression. The models, for which the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) timeseries regressions will be run, are presented in Table 3. Table 3 OLS timeseries models 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) CAPM The dependent variable in the first test is the return of each sizebased portfolio and in the second test the return of each liquiditybased portfolio. The independent variable is the same in both tests: the market premium. The results of these regressions are displayed in tables 4 and 5 on the next page. In both the sizebased and the liquiditybased portfolios the market premium is significant and explains a minimum of 67,4% and maximum of 86,5% of the variance of the excess return of the sizebased portfolios, and 69,0% and 88,0% for the liquiditybased portfolios. However, the constants are significant for all portfolios but two portfolios, indicating that the constant also captures some of the variance. The smallest and highest portfolios (1 and 10) have a lower fit of the model (R 2 ) than the portfolios in the middle. Outliers in the dataset, which distort the data, could cause this. 14
15 Table 4 Regression of excess return of sizebased portfolios on the market premium. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Table 5 Regression of excess return of liquiditybased portfolios on the market premium. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Portfolio R 2 Portfolio R 2 (size) (tvalue) (tvalue) (liquidity) (tvalue) (tvalue) (6.418)* (28.006)* (2.895)* (29.777)* (0.899) (40.165)* (5.059)* (33.792)* (3.056)* (43.836)* (4.583)* (37.322)* (3.147)* (37.294)* (5.446)* (39.752)* (8.477)* (43.566)* (4.552)* (25.867)* (10.661)* (41.098)* (5.777)* (44.183)* (7.340)* (24.963)* (1.676) (34.157)* (9.790)* (36.674)* (7.126)* (50.409)* (8.042)* (31.012)* (7.344)* (46.975)* (3.805)* (24.691)* (4.865)* (29.863)* 15
16 4.2.2 CAPM plus liquidity factors The liquidity factor, the bidask spread, will be added to the CAPM model. Before the regressions are run, it is necessary to check for collinearity. This means that two or more variables could explain the same variance, which causes the coefficients estimates of these variables to change significantly when data is added or removed. In order to test for collinearity, the correlation between the market beta and the bidask spread of every portfolio is calculated in Table 6 for the sizebased portfolios and in Table 7 for the liquiditybased portfolios. Table 6 Correlation between market premium, marketwide liquidity and portfolio liquidity of sizebased portfolios. The significance is displayed under the correlation (a correlation is significant at the 0.05 level) Table 7 Correlation between market premium, marketwide liquidity and portfolio liquidity of liquiditybased portfolios. The significance is displayed under the correlation (a correlation is significant at the 0.05 level)
17 The market premium and the marketwide liquidity risk are significantly correlated. Also, the correlation between the market premium and expected liquidity risk is more significant for liquiditybased portfolios, where the bidask spread of 8 out of 10 portfolios has a significant correlation with the market premium in comparison to only two sizebased portfolios. Table 8 contains the results of the regressions for the model on the sizebased portfolios and Table 9 contains the results on the liquiditybased portfolios. Table 8 Regression of excess return of sizebased portfolios on the market premium and liquidity factor. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Portfolio R 2 (size) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (5.976)* (27.147)* (1.310) (0.727) (1.903) (39.040)* (3.694)* (0.173) (1.503) (42.445)* (4.137)* (0.047) (2.028)* (35.983)* (3.063)* (0.210) (6.823)* (40.888)* (3.024)* (0.697) (7.347)* (38.551)* (2.785)* (0.298) (5.506)* (22.733)* (0.859) (0.473) (6.873)* (35.520)* (1.928) (2.692)* (3.010)* (29.253)* (1.541) (2.727)* (3.546)* (22.475)* (0.159) (0.360) 17
18 The coefficient of expected liquidity risk for the sizebased portfolios is for all but one portfolio () and is only significant 2 out of 10 times. Thus even when the factor is significant, its coefficient is or. Marketwide liquidity performs a little better, being significant 5 times, but the beta is always. An explanation for these results on sizebased portfolios can be found in Table 1. The bidask spread does vary for every portfolio, but it does not a show a consistent decline. In some portfolios the bidask spread is higher than the previous portfolio. The model explains 66,4% till 86,9% of the variance, with the standard market beta contributing most. The standard market beta is significant for all portfolios. Still, the highly significant constants show that the model can be improved by adding more variables. Table 9 Regression of excess return of liquiditybased portfolios on the market premium and liquidity factors. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Portfolio R 2 (liquidity) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (0.715) (29.268)* (3.373)* (2.124)* (0.254) (34.088)* (3.535)* (2.026)* (0.198) (35.408) (3.283)* (1.444) (0.806) (37.175)* (1.865) (2.597)* (0.034) (23.282)* (1.438) (1.328) (0.569) (41.800) (2.170)* (1.618) (1.509) (33.177)* (1.769) (2.031)* (1.171) (47.781)* (1.769) (3.658) (1.208) (43.039)* (0.921) (2.210)* (4.156)* (27.540)* (0.434) (0.585) 18
19 The results of the liquiditybased portfolios show that the coefficient for the bidask spread is significant for 5 portfolios and that these significant coefficients are higher than zero. The marketwide liquidity risk is for every portfolio. In comparison to the previous CAPM regressions and the CAPM plus liquidity factor regression on sizebased portfolios, the constant is insignificant for every portfolio except the last. This means that the CAPM adjusted with a liquidity factor does indeed a better job at explaining the variance of excess returns of liquiditybased portfolios. The fit of the model ranges from 74,3% till 89,8% CAPM plus liquidity and FamaFrench factors Finally, for the third model the Fama and French (1993) factors, SMB and HML, are added to the model. As before, tables 10 and 11 check for collinearity between the factors. The correlations between the market premium, marketwide liquidity and expected liquidity have remained the same, so they will not be displayed here. For reference, see tables 6 and 7. The correlation between the SMB factor and the market premium is relatively high and it is significant. This could lead to these coefficients not being significant. The correlations between the SMB factor and the bidask spread are for both the sizebased and the liquiditybased portfolios insignificant. Several correlations between the HML factor and bidask spread are significant, yet not high enough to have an impact on the regression. Marketwide liquidity does not seem to be correlated with either of the FamaFrench factors. 19
20 Table 10 Correlation between FamaFrench factors and previously used variables of sizebased portfolios. The significance is displayed under the correlation (a correlation is significant at the 0.05 level) Table 11 Correlation between FamaFrench factors and previously used variables of liquiditybased portfolios. The significance is displayed under the correlation (a correlation is significant at the 0.05 level)
21 The results of the regression of the complete model are shown in tables 12 and 13, for respectively, the sizebased portfolios and the liquiditybased portfolios. Table 12 Regression of excess return of the sizebased portfolios on the market premium, liquidity factors, SMB and HML factor. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Portfolio (Size) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) R (5.601)* (26.167)* (1.229) (0.630) (1.229) (1.433) (1.774) (36.630)* (3.661)* (0.168) (0.645) (0.783) (1.001) (39.233)* (3.774)* (0.265) (2.808)* (2.233)* (1.390) (33.120)* (2.687)* (0.310) (2.835)* (2.421)* (6.338)* (37.696)* (2.839)* (0.789) (2.069)* (0.009) (6.814)* (35.576)* (2.336)* (0.070) (4.769)* (1.529) (5.315)* (20.215)* (0.451) (1.001) (3.483)* (0.718) (6.232)* (32.669)* (1.364) (2.352)* (4.667)* (2.703)* (2.882)* (26.443)* (0.964) (2.138)* (4.212)* (2.524)* (3.107)* (20.432)* (0.380) (0.363) (1.647) (1.198) As is clear in Table 12, the betas for the liquidity factors are again for almost all portfolios. The beta for marketwide liquidity risk is significant for 5 portfolios. It does not seem that the bidask spread can explain the variance in the excess return well. Whenever it is significant, the coefficient is most of the time. The beta of the SMB factor ranges from to and is significant for 7 portfolios. The HML factor is for 8 portfolios, for the other 2, and only significant in 4 portfolios. This model explains 66,8% till 87,4% of the 21
22 variance in the excess returns of the sizebased portfolios, again with the standard market beta of CAPM as major contributing factor. However, the constant is also significant for 8 out of 10 portfolios, indicating that there is still variance left that can be explained by other variables. Table 13 Regression of excess return of the liquiditybased portfolios on the market premium, liquidity factors, SMB and HML factor. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level Portfolio (Spread) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) R (0.854) (27.088)* (3.123)* (2.086)* (1.068) (2.426)* (0.300) (31.732)* (3.244)* (1.897) (1.507) (3.381)* (0.161) (32.963)* (2.870)* (1.160) (2.908)* (4.267)* (0.602) (35.224)* (1.509) (2.241)* (1.591) (5.012)* (0.130) (20.921)* (1.142) (1.029) (2.271)* (1.814) (0.767) (38.795) (1.743) (1.098) (2.817)* (3.446)* (1.081) (29.962)* (1.353) (1.368) (3.045)* (1.630) (0.856) (43.611) (1.378) (3.063)* (2.849)* (1.690) (0.946) (40.740)* (0.751) (2.185)* (4.782)* (2.559)* (3.878)* (26.404)* (0.046) (0.215) (2.297)* (4.304)* 22
23 Table 13 shows that the expected liquidity risk beta varies from till and is significant for 4 portfolios. The marketwide liquidity risk factor does not perform any better, being significant only 3 times and constantly. The FamaFrench factors add explanatory power to this model. Both the SMB and the HML betas are significant in 7 portfolios and are mostly higher than zero. The constant factor is only significant for the last portfolio, indicating that this model explains the variance in the excess return well. As usual, the market beta is significant for all portfolios. The fit of the model ranges from 76,3% till 91,0% Second stage regressions For the crosssection regression the betas found in the previous subparagraph will now be regressed on the average return of the portfolios using the following model: ( ), where the lambdas take the values of the betas found in the sizebased and liquiditybased portfolios return regressions on the market premium, liquidity and FamaFrench factors. Table 14 Regression of excess return of the sizebased and liquiditybased portfolios on the betas of the market premium, liquidity factors, SMB and HML factor. * indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) (tvalue) R 2 Size (0.055) (1.330) (0.460) (1.266) (3.314)* (1.973) Liquidity (1.580) (0.401) ( (0.277) (0.556) (0.690) Table 14 presents the results. The fit of the model for the sizebased portfolios is quite high, 97,0%, but only the beta of the SMB factor is significant. The liquiditybased portfolio betas perform even worse, explaining only 42,5% with no single beta significant. 23
24 Chapter 5: Conclusions The purpose of this paper was to investigate whether liquidity is priced and whether the return increases when liquidity decreases. This was done by regressing the excess returns of sizebased and liquiditybased portfolios using the CAPM, the CAPM extended with the bidask spread and finally the CAPM extended with the marketwide liquidity risk, the expected liquidity risk and the FamaFrench factors, SMB and HML. Second stage regressions have been run on this final model, for both the sizebased and liquiditybased portfolios. While the CAPM does explain a lot of the variance in the excess return, the liquidity factors do add value to the model for liquiditybased portfolios. Adding the SMB and HML factors to the model does not negate the effect of the liquidity on the return and increases the explanatory power of the model. Results of the second stage regressions are positive for the sizebased portfolios, but are not conclusive for the liquiditybased portfolios. This paper thus finds evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is a relationship between liquidity and asset prices. If the stocks are sorted on market value however, then the evidence is mixed. For some portfolios the liquidity betas are significant, but they take a low value, often zero, for all sizebased portfolios. With respect to the second hypothesis, this study finds evidence that the return increases when liquidity decreases, as evident in the positive coefficients of the liquidity factor in the second and third model for liquiditybased portfolios. A positive coefficient for the bidask spread indicates that an increase in the bidask spread, which decreases liquidity, increases the return. However, in comparison with the standard market beta of the CAPM, neither the liquidity factors, SMB nor HML have a high coefficient, which could be a subject for further research. The FamaFrench factors could be extended with a momentum factor, further increasing the explanatory power of the model. Furthermore, stocks were admitted to the dataset when their data was available, possibly leading to a distortion of the bidask spread data due to beginning stocks having a relative high bidask spread as compared to some years later. 24
25 Chapter 6: References Acharya, V.V. and Pedersen, L.H., Asset pricing with liquidity risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(2), pp Amihud, Y. and Mendelson, H., Asset pricing and the bidask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17(2), pp Amihud, Y., Illiquidity and stock returns: crosssection and timeseries effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1), pp Amihud, Y., Mendelson, H. and Pedersen, L.H., (2005). Liquidity and Asset Prices. Foundation and Trends in Finance, 1(4), pp Campbell, J.Y., S.J. Grossman and Wang, J., (1993). Trading volume and serial correlation in stock returns. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(4), pp Datar, V.T., Naik, N.Y. and Radcliffe, R., Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(2), pp Eleswarapu, V.R., (1997). Cost of transacting and expected returns in the Nasdaq market. Journal of Finance, 52(5), pp Fama, E.F. and French, K.R., Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), pp Fama, E.F. and MacBeth, J.D., Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), pp Kyle, A.S., (1985). Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica, 53(6), pp
26 Lintner, J., (1965). The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), pp Pastor, L. and Stambaugh, R.F., Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3), pp Petersen, M.A. and Fialkowski, D., Posted versus effective spreads. Journal of Financial Economics, 35(3), pp Roll, R. and Subrahmanyam, A., (2010). Liquidity skewness. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(10), pp Sharpe, W., Capital asset prices: A theory of capital market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), pp
Illiquidity 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationis dead in the context of empirical models of assets returns. Rhys Frake Word count: 2997
Present a critique of the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and hence discuss the claim that beta is dead in the context of empirical models of assets returns. Rhys Frake 0937708 Word count: 2997 1 P a g e
More informationFama and French ThreeFactor Model: Evidence from Istanbul Stock Exchange
Volume 4 Number 2 2013 pp. 1122 ISSN: 13092448 www.berjournal.com Fama and French ThreeFactor Model: Evidence from Istanbul Stock Exchange Veysel Eraslan a Abstract: This study tests the validity of
More informationEmpirical Researches of the Capital Asset Pricing Model and the FamaFrench Threefactor Model on the U.S. Stock Market
Mälardalens University Västerås, 20130604 The School of Business, Society and Engineering (EST) Division of Economics Bachelor Thesis in Economics Supervisor: Clas Eriksson Empirical Researches of the
More informationTrading Probability and Turnover as measures of Liquidity Risk: Evidence from the U.K. Stock Market. Ian McManus. Peter Smith.
Trading Probability and Turnover as measures of Liquidity Risk: Evidence from the U.K. Stock Market. Ian McManus (Corresponding author). School of Management, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton,
More informationActive and passive funds: excess returns and persistence in performance
Active and passive funds: excess returns and persistence in performance  Evidence from the Swedish fund market 20002011  Master s Thesis Department of Economics Lund University Authors: Anna Ljungberg
More informationWhat is the relationship between investor holding period and liquidity?
What is the relationship between investor holding period and liquidity? Randi Næs and Bernt Arne Ødegaard April 2007 Very Preliminary Abstract Expected holding period for individual investors is a central
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 informationLiquidity and stock returns evidence from UK stock market
University of Nottingham Liquidity and stock returns evidence from UK stock market Le, Dang Thuy Trang MSc Finance and Investment Liquidity and stock returns evidence from UK stock market by Le, Dang Thuy
More informationJournal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 9 Number 2 Summer 1996
Journal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 9 Number 2 Summer 1996 THE USE OF FINANCIAL RATIOS AS MEASURES OF RISK IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE BIDASK SPREAD Huldah A. Ryan * Abstract The effect
More informationCHAPTER 3. Arbitrage and Financial Decision Making. Chapter Synopsis
CHAPTER 3 Arbitrage and Financial Decision Making Chapter Synopsis 3.1 Valuing Decisions When considering an investment opportunity, a financial manager must systematically compare the costs and benefits
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 informationTrading Turnover and Expected Stock Returns: The Trading Frequency Hypothesis and Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange
Trading Turnover and Expected Stock Returns: The Trading Frequency Hypothesis and Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange Shingyang Hu National Taiwan University and University of Chicago 1101 East 58
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 informationOptimal 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 informationHow Many Days Equal A Year? Nontrivial on the MeanVariance Model
How Many Days Equal A Year? Nontrivial on the MeanVariance Model George L. Ye, Dr. Sobey School of Business Saint Mary s University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Christine Panasian, Dr. Sobey School of
More informationEquity Risk Premium Article Michael Annin, CFA and Dominic Falaschetti, CFA
Equity Risk Premium Article Michael Annin, CFA and Dominic Falaschetti, CFA This article appears in the January/February 1998 issue of Valuation Strategies. Executive Summary This article explores one
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 informationChapter 11, Risk and Return
Chapter 11, Risk and Return 1. A portfolio is. A) a group of assets, such as stocks and bonds, held as a collective unit by an investor B) the expected return on a risky asset C) the expected return on
More informationLiquidity and Asset Pricing: Evidence on the Role of Investor Holding Period
Liquidity and Asset Pricing: Evidence on the Role of Investor Holding Period Randi Næs and Bernt Arne Ødegaard March 2009 Abstract We use data on actual holding periods for all investors in a stock market
More informationExchange Risk versus the Value Factor In International Asset Pricing
Exchange Risk versus the Value Factor In International Asset Pricing Hong Wu Division of Economics and Finance College of Business & Economics West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 265066025 hwu3@wvu.edu
More informationTHE IMPACT OF LIQUIDITY PROVIDERS ON THE BALTIC STOCK EXCHANGE
RĪGAS EKONOMIKAS AUGSTSKOLA STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS IN RIGA Bachelor Thesis THE IMPACT OF LIQUIDITY PROVIDERS ON THE BALTIC STOCK EXCHANGE Authors: Kristīne Grečuhina Marija Timofejeva Supervisor:
More informationReview for Exam 2. Instructions: Please read carefully
Review for Exam Instructions: Please read carefully The exam will have 1 multiple choice questions and 5 work problems. Questions in the multiple choice section will be either concept or calculation questions.
More informationEffect of Liquidity on Size Premium and its Implications for Financial Valuations
Effect of Liquidity on Size Premium and its Implications for Financial Valuations [** Working Title] Frank Torchio and Sunita Surana Preliminary Draft August 2013 I. Size Premiums and Fair Value Discounted
More informationChapter 7 Portfolio Theory and Other Asset Pricing Models
Chapter 7 Portfolio Theory and Other sset Pricing Models NSWERS TO ENDOFCHPTER QUESTIONS 71 a. portfolio is made up of a group of individual assets held in combination. n asset that would be relatively
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 informationOnline Appendix for. On the determinants of pairs trading profitability
Online Appendix for On the determinants of pairs trading profitability October 2014 Table 1 gives an overview of selected data sets used in the study. The appendix then shows that the future earnings surprises
More informationHow to Use the IV Index
How to Use the IV Index Fidelity Brokerage Services, Member NYSE, SIPC 561107.1.0 2010 FMR LLC. All rights reserved. Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 2 2. Getting Started... 2 3. Reading the Data...
More informationCAPM, Arbitrage, and Linear Factor Models
CAPM, Arbitrage, and Linear Factor Models CAPM, Arbitrage, Linear Factor Models 1/ 41 Introduction We now assume all investors actually choose meanvariance e cient portfolios. By equating these investors
More informationSAMPLE MIDTERM QUESTIONS
SAMPLE MIDTERM QUESTIONS William L. Silber HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE MID TERM: 1. Study in a group 2. Review the concept questions in the Before and After book 3. When you review the questions listed below,
More informationTHE ANALYSIS OF AN INVESTMENT RISK WITHIN EMERGING CAPITAL MARKETS. THE CASE OF THE WARSAW STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ANALYSIS OF AN INVESTMENT RISK WITHIN EMERGING CAPITAL MARKETS. THE CASE OF THE WARSAW STOCK EXCHANGE Mieczysław Kowerski 1 Abstract The purpose of the paper is to show that the threefactor FamaFrench
More informationSellside Illiquidity and the CrossSection of Expected Stock Returns
Sellside Illiquidity and the CrossSection of Expected Stock Returns Michael J. Brennan Tarun Chordia Avanidhar Subrahmanyam Qing Tong March 14, 2009 Brennan is from the Anderson School at UCLA and the
More informationThe performance of the S&P Global Luxury Index compared to the MSCI World Index, during the financial crisis.
The performance of the S&P Global Luxury Index compared to the MSCI World Index, during the financial crisis. An analysis of 80 luxury goods companies around the world Name: Laura van Ballegooijen Student
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 informationCredit Ratings and The CrossSection of Stock Returns
Credit Ratings and The CrossSection of Stock Returns Doron Avramov Department of Finance Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland davramov@rhsmith.umd.edu Tarun Chordia Department of
More informationA Farewell to Put/Call Parity Dallas Brozik, Marshall University
A Farewell to Put/Call Parity Dallas Brozik, Marshall University Abstract The concept of put/call parity has long been a fundamental tenet of certain asset pricing models. Though some research has examined
More informationAsset Pricing Models and Industry Sorted Portfolios
Asset Pricing Models and Industry Sorted Portfolios Author: Marijn de Vries ANR: 264141 Faculty: Faculty of Economics and Business studies Programme: Bedrijfseconomie Supervisor: Jiehui Hu MSc Date: 7/6/2012
More informationChapter 5 Financial Forwards and Futures
Chapter 5 Financial Forwards and Futures Question 5.1. Four different ways to sell a share of stock that has a price S(0) at time 0. Question 5.2. Description Get Paid at Lose Ownership of Receive Payment
More informationVolatility and Premiums in US Equity Returns. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French *
Volatility and Premiums in US Equity Returns Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French * Understanding volatility is crucial for informed investment decisions. This paper explores the volatility of the market,
More informationDOES IT PAY TO HAVE FAT TAILS? EXAMINING KURTOSIS AND THE CROSSSECTION OF STOCK RETURNS
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
More informationThe term structure of equity option implied volatility
The term structure of equity option implied volatility Christopher S. Jones Tong Wang Marshall School of Business Marshall School of Business University of Southern California University of Southern California
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 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 informationON THE RISK ADJUSTED DISCOUNT RATE FOR DETERMINING LIFE OFFICE APPRAISAL VALUES BY M. SHERRIS B.A., M.B.A., F.I.A., F.I.A.A. 1.
ON THE RISK ADJUSTED DISCOUNT RATE FOR DETERMINING LIFE OFFICE APPRAISAL VALUES BY M. SHERRIS B.A., M.B.A., F.I.A., F.I.A.A. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 A number of papers have been written in recent years that
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 informationJournal of Exclusive Management Science May 2015 Vol 4 Issue 5  ISSN 2277 5684
Journal of Exclusive Management Science May 2015 Vol 4 Issue 5 ISSN 2277 5684 A Study on the Emprical Testing Of Capital Asset Pricing Model on Selected Energy Sector Companies Listed In NSE Abstract *S.A.
More informationCHAPTER 14 THE VALUE OF LIQUIDITY
CHAPTER 14 1 THE VALUE OF LIQUIDITY When you buy a stock, bond, real asset or a business, you sometimes face buyer s remorse, where you want to reverse your decision and sell what you just bought. The
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 informationMomentum and Credit Rating
USC FBE FINANCE SEMINAR presented by Doron Avramov FRIDAY, September 23, 2005 10:30 am 12:00 pm, Room: JKP104 Momentum and Credit Rating Doron Avramov Department of Finance Robert H. Smith School of Business
More informationRisk and return in Þxed income arbitrage: Nickels in front of a steamroller?
Risk and return in Þxed income arbitrage Université d Evry June 2005 1 Risk and return in Þxed income arbitrage: Nickels in front of a steamroller? Jefferson Duarte University of Washington Francis Longstaff
More informationCHAPTER 10. Capital Markets and the Pricing of Risk. Chapter Synopsis
CHAPE 0 Capital Markets and the Pricing of isk Chapter Synopsis 0. A First Look at isk and eturn Historically there has been a large difference in the returns and variability from investing in different
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 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 informationPrivate Equity Performance and Liquidity Risk
Private Equity Performance and Liquidity Risk Ludovic Phalippou (University of Oxford, Said Business School) (coauthors: Francesco Franzoni and Eric Nowak, both at Swiss Finance Institute University of
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 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 informationCHAPTER 9: THE CAPITAL ASSET PRICING MODEL
CHAPTER 9: THE CAPITAL ASSET PRICING MODEL PROBLEM SETS 1. E(r P ) = r f + β P [E(r M ) r f ] 18 = 6 + β P(14 6) β P = 12/8 = 1.5 2. If the security s correlation coefficient with the market portfolio
More informationTHE ELASTICITY OF THE PRICE OF A STOCK AND ITS BETA
THE ELASTICITY OF THE PRICE OF A STOCK AND ITS BETA Cyriac ANTONY MPh, Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Statistics, Sacred Heart College Thevara, Kochi, India Email: cyriacantony2003@yahoo.co.in E.S. JEEVANAND
More informationNOTE: S&P Data are provided by Standard and Poor's Index Services Group via Dimensional Fund Advisors Returns 2.0 Program
NOTE: S&P Data are provided by Standard and Poor's Index Services Group via Dimensional Fund Advisors Returns 2.0 Program Rolling Returns Chart 01/192612/2012 ; Default Currency: USD, Rolling Span: 5
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 Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)
The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) Tee Kilenthong UTCC c Kilenthong 2016 Tee Kilenthong UTCC The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) 1 / 36 Main Issues What is an equilibrium implication if all investors
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 informationEquity Risk Premiums: Looking backwards and forwards
Equity Risk Premiums: Looking backwards and forwards Aswath Damodaran Aswath Damodaran 1 What is the Equity Risk Premium? Intuitively, the equity risk premium measures what investors demand over and above
More informationThe Impact of Effective Investor Relations on Market Value. Vineet Agarwal (Cranfield School of Management)
The Impact of Effective Investor Relations on Market Value Vineet Agarwal (Cranfield School of Management) Angel Liao (The Management School, University of Edinburgh) Elly A. Nash (Independent) Richard
More informationMarket Maker Inventories and Stock Prices
Capital Market Frictions Market Maker Inventories and Stock Prices By Terrence Hendershott and Mark S. Seasholes* Empirical studies linking liquidity provision to asset prices follow naturally from inventory
More informationFinancial Econometrics Series SWP 2011/09. Asymmetric information and Market Collapse: Evidence from the Chinese Market. P.K. Narayan and X.
Faculty of Business and Law School of Accounting, Economics and Finance Financial Econometrics Series SWP 2011/09 Asymmetric information and Market Collapse: Evidence from the Chinese Market P.K. Narayan
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 informationWEB APPENDIX. Calculating Beta Coefficients. b Beta Rise Run Y 7.1 1 8.92 X 10.0 0.0 16.0 10.0 1.6
WEB APPENDIX 8A Calculating Beta Coefficients The CAPM is an ex ante model, which means that all of the variables represent beforethefact, expected values. In particular, the beta coefficient used in
More informationReceived: August 25, 2015 Accepted: Jan. 18, 2016 Published: January 18, 2016
Validity of Capital Assets Pricing Model (CAPM) (Empirical Evidences from Amman Stock Exchange) Ahmad Alqisie (Corresponding Author) Faculty of Business and Finance, the World Islamic Sciences & Education
More informationTesting for Granger causality between stock prices and economic growth
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Testing for Granger causality between stock prices and economic growth Pasquale Foresti 2006 Online at http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/2962/ MPRA Paper No. 2962, posted
More informationModels of Risk and Return
Models of Risk and Return Aswath Damodaran Aswath Damodaran 1 First Principles Invest in projects that yield a return greater than the minimum acceptable hurdle rate. The hurdle rate should be higher for
More informationFactoring Information into Returns
Factoring Information into Returns David Easley, Soeren Hvidkjaer, and Maureen O Hara July 27, 2008 Easley, dae3@cornell.edu, Department of Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; Hvidkjaer, soeren@hvidkjaer.net,
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 informationThe Diminishing Liquidity Premium
The Diminishing Liquidity Premium By Azi BenRephael *, Ohad Kadan **, and Avi Wohl *** This version: September 2010 We thank Viral Acharya, Gil Aharoni, Yakov Amihud, Doron Avramov, Craig Holden, Jiekun
More informationJournal of Banking & Finance
Journal of Banking & Finance 35 (2011) 3335 3350 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Banking & Finance journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbf Trading frequency and asset pricing
More informationChapter 7 Risk and Return: Portfolio Theory and Asset Pricing Models ANSWERS TO ENDOFCHAPTER QUESTIONS
Chapter 7 Risk and Return: Portfolio Theory and Asset Pricing odels ANSWERS TO ENDOFCHAPTER QUESTIONS 71 a. A portfolio is made up of a group of individual assets held in combination. An asset that
More informationPostEarningsAnnouncement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises
PostEarningsAnnouncement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises Joshua Livnat Department of Accounting Stern School of Business Administration New York University 311 Tisch Hall 40 W. 4 th St. NY NY 10012
More informationModule 7 Asset pricing models
1. Overview Module 7 Asset pricing models Prepared by Pamela Peterson Drake, Ph.D., CFA Asset pricing models are different ways of interpreting how investors value investments. Most models are based on
More informationผ ช วยศาสตราจารย ดร.ส ล กษมณ ภ ทรธรรมมาศ
การบรรยายว ชาการเร อง AEC Portfolio Investment ห วข อเร อง AEC Capital Asset Pricing Models ผ บรรยาย ผ ช วยศาสตราจารย ดร.ส ล กษมณ ภ ทรธรรมมาศ จ ดโดย คณะพาณ ชยศาสตร และการบ ญช มหาว ทยาล ยธรรมศาสตร ร วมก
More informationDo Liquidity Proxies Measure Liquidity Accurately in ETFs?
Do Liquidity Proxies Measure Liquidity Accurately in ETFs? Ben Marshall Nhut Nguyen Nuttawat Visaltanachoti Massey University Background 1 It is important to measure liquidity accurately: When assessing
More informationValue versus Growth in the UK Stock Market, 1955 to 2000
Value versus Growth in the UK Stock Market, 1955 to 2000 Elroy Dimson London Business School Stefan Nagel London Business School Garrett Quigley Dimensional Fund Advisors May 2001 Work in progress Preliminary
More informationChap 3 CAPM, Arbitrage, and Linear Factor Models
Chap 3 CAPM, Arbitrage, and Linear Factor Models 1 Asset Pricing Model a logical extension of portfolio selection theory is to consider the equilibrium asset pricing consequences of investors individually
More informationChapter 5 Risk and Return ANSWERS TO SELECTED ENDOFCHAPTER QUESTIONS
Chapter 5 Risk and Return ANSWERS TO SELECTED ENDOFCHAPTER QUESTIONS 51 a. Standalone risk is only a part of total risk and pertains to the risk an investor takes by holding only one asset. Risk is
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 informationAre company size and stock beta, liquidity and idiosyncratic volatility related to stock returns? Australian evidence
Bernard Bollen (Australia), Louise Clayton (Australia), Michael Dempsey (Australia), Madhu Veeraraghavan (Australia) Are company size and stock beta, liquidity and idiosyncratic volatility related to stock
More informationA Tale of Two Prices: Liquidity and Asset Prices in Multiple Markets * Abstract
A Tale of Two Prices: Liquidity and Asset Prices in Multiple Markets * Justin S. P. Chan Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore Management University Dong Hong Lee Kong Chian School of Business Singapore
More informationSecondary Stock Market Liquidity and the Cost of Issuing Seasoned Equity European evidence
Department of Finance Handelshøjskolen København Copenhagen Business School Secondary Stock Market Liquidity and the Cost of Issuing Seasoned Equity European evidence Finance Master s thesis Pages: 117
More informationPredicting Intermediate Returns of the S&P500; The Risk Factor
Predicting Intermediate Returns of the S&P500; The Risk Factor Kent E. Payne Department of Economics Hankamer School of Business Baylor University Waco, TX 767988003 Kent_Payne@baylor.edu December 1999
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 informationThe use of CAPM and Fama and French Three Factor Model: portfolios selection
Belen Blanco (Spain) The use of CAPM and Fama and French Three Factor Model: portfolios selection Abstract This work tests the American NYSE market, the expected returns of a portfolios selection according
More informationEquity Market Risk Premium Research Summary. 12 April 2016
Equity Market Risk Premium Research Summary 12 April 2016 Introduction welcome If you are reading this, it is likely that you are in regular contact with KPMG on the topic of valuations. The goal of this
More informationThe problems of being passive
The problems of being passive Evaluating the merits of an index investment strategy In the investment management industry, indexing has received little attention from investors compared with active management.
More informationFirm Characteristics and Informed Trading: Implications for Asset Pricing
Firm Characteristics and Informed Trading: Implications for Asset Pricing Hadiye Aslan University of Houston David Easley Cornell University Soeren Hvidkjaer Copenhagen Business School Maureen O Hara Cornell
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 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 information