Corporate Income Tax and Stock Returns


 Nickolas Fitzgerald
 2 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 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. I show that firms that pay high e ective tax rates earn a return premium over firms that pay low e ective tax rates. This novel finding is a robust feature of the data that is not explained by firm characteristics or industry e ects. I propose a simple explanation: Di erences in e ective corporate tax rates are almost exclusively driven by the size of tax credits and deductions. Such tax shields reduce the e ective operating leverage of a firm. As a result, hightax firms are more exposed to aggregate cash flow shocks and hence command a risk premium. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15209, USA
2 1 Introduction The e ects of taxation are an area of keen interest for a broad range of questions in finance. For instance, one of the major areas of study in corporate finance tries to understand the e ects of taxation on firm decisions such as capital structure, capital investment, payout policies, executive compensation, as well as organizational form. 1 Other strands of the literature highlight the importance of taxation for the value of corporate equity and risk premia. 2 Surprisingly, the e ects of taxation  and in particular of corporate income taxation  on the crosssection of stock returns has received much less attention. 3 The contribution of this paper is to show that corporate income taxes present a source of risk that is priced in the crosssection of stock returns. I focus my inquiry on di erences in the e ective corporate income tax rate (ETR), which I measure as the ratio of current tax expense to operating cash flows. While all corporations face the same marginal federal tax rate schedule, numerous tax shields consisting of tax deductions, credits, as well as provisions for net operating loss carryforwards cause the ETR to vary widely in the crosssection of firms. I begin my empirical analysis by running crosssectional regressions of stock returns on lagged firm characteristics, as in Fama and Macbeth (1973). This procedure allows me to measure the relation between the ETR and stock returns while controlling for other firm attributes that are know predictors of returns. The regression analysis shows that the ETR is a robust and statistically significant predictor of the cross section of stock returns that is not driven by other firm characteristics or industry e ects. The magnitude of the coe cients suggests that this relation is economically important: The predicted return di erential between a firm with a zero ETR and one whose ETR equals the current statutory tax rate of 35% is 2.31% per year. In order to investigate the properties of the return premium, I sort firms into decile portfolios based on their lagged ETR. The hedge portfolio that is long the high ETR stocks and short the low ETR stocks earns an excess return of over 5.7% per year. Furthermore, the return premium is poorly priced by common factor models. Specifically, the zerocost portfolio earns an abnormal return of 7.8% per year with respect to the Fama and French 1 See e.g. Graham (2007) for a review of the literature. 2 Examples inclue McGrattan and Prescott (2005), Sialm (2006a), Sialm (2006b), Sialm (2009), Croce et al. (2012), Pastor and Veronesi (2012), Croce et al. (2013), Gomes et al. (2013), and Schulz (2015). 3 Exceptions incluce Hanlon et al. (2005), who study the e ects of di erences in taxable and book income, and Thomas and Zhang (2011), who focus on surprises in tax expense. 1
3 (1993) model which includes factors for the market return, size, and value. When the threefactor model is augmented with factors for profitability and investment as in Fama and French (2014), the abnormal return remains large at 4.7%, with most of the reduction due to the inclusion of the profitability factor. In addition to being economically large, the return premium as well as the abnormal returns with respect to the three and five factor models are highly statistically significant. I perform a host of robustness checks. For instance, since the ETR is moderately correlated with measures of profitability in the data, I perform doublesorts to construct profitabilityneutral ETR portfolios, which yields similar results. The conclusions also hold when the sample is restricted to after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was one of the most significant reforms of corporate taxation in the last century and reduced the marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket from 46% to 34%. To interpret the empirical findings, I propose a simple stylized model of the crosssection of firms. Pretax cash flows are driven by an aggregate as well as idiosyncratic cash flow shocks. As is common in this kind of model, firms face a fixed cost which introduces operating leverage. 4 I abstract from investment and adopt a reducedform specification of the tax system. Firms are born with a tax shield that stays fixed throughout their lifetime and allows them to reduce their taxable income. The statutory tax rate is fixed and common across firms. The model replicates the positive relation between the ETR and stock returns that I document in the data. Tax shields reduce the e ective level of operating leverage of a firm. Hence, the aftertax cash flows of highetr firms  i.e. firms with low tax shields  are more sensitive to shocks in pretax cash flows. HighETR stocks hence command a risk premium to compensate for the increased exposure to aggregate risk. 2 Empirical Results In this section, I document that stocks that pay a high e ective tax rate earn a return premium over stocks that pay a low e ective tax rate. I show that the return premium is a robust feature of the data that is not explained by other firm or industry characteristics. Furthermore, I demonstrate that an investment strategy that is long highetr stocks and short lowetr stocks generates an abnormal return with respect to standard factor models. 4 See Kogan and Papanikolaou (2012) for an overview of recent models that link firm fundamentals to stock returns and the use of fixed cost to generate operating leverage. 2
4 2.1 Financial Data I obtain stock market data from CRSP and financial statement data from Standard and Poor s Compustat database. The sample period covers 1963 to Financial market variables are at monthly frequency and accounting variables at annual frequency. Using this data, I construct measures for a series of common characteristics that have been shown to predict stock returns in the cross section. I compute the 12 months rolling CAPM Beta (Beta), market capitalization (ME), the booktomarket ration (BM), momentum based on the prior 12 moths stock return (Mom), asset growth (AG), profitability as in Fama and French (2014) (Prof), cash flows (CF), financial leverage (LevF), and operating leverage (LevO). Appendix A explains in detail how these variables are constructed. 2.2 Measuring the E ective Tax Rate I measure the e ective tax rate (ETR) as the ratio of current taxes to operating cash flows, 5 ETR = Current Taxes Operating Cash Flows. The numerator is a proxy for the firms income tax liability for the year and includes U.S. federal, state, and local income taxes as well as foreign income taxes. The denominator uses a measure of operating cash flows, as opposed to earnings, in order to compensate for the e ects of accrual accounting procedures that can vary between firms, in particular with firm size (see Hagerman and Zmijewski (1979)). Furthermore, operating cash flows measure the beforetax cash payo to capital, which is the pretax cash flow variable relevant to capital budgeting decisions. Operating cash flows are measured as revenues (REV) minus the sum of cost of goods sold (COGS), selling, general and administrative expenses (SGA), and the change in working capital (4WCAP), Operating Cash Flows = REV COGS {z SGA } EBITDA 4WCAP, which is equivalent to EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization) adjusted for the change in working capital. For negative values of operating cash flows, the ETR is ill defined. For instance, if a firm with negative operating cash flows has positive tax expenditure (which can happen due to 5 Other studies that use ETR measures based on operating cash flows include Fama (1981) and Gonedes (1981). See Plesko (2003) for an overview of di erent ETR measures. 3
5 di erences in book and tax income), the resulting ETR measure would be negative. In the data, operating cash flows are quite frequently negative, for about 30% of observations, with the vast majority due to small firms. In order to not have to discard this significant number of observations, I set the ETR to zero for observations with negative operating negative cash flows. This amounts to simply applying the tax law, assuming that taxable income is zero and the firm cannot carry back the current net operating loss to reduce a prior year s positive tax expense. Note that this treatment biases my results against finding a return premium for highetr firms, as it mostly applies to small firms which have historically earned higher returns (e.g. French and Fama (1992)). Nevertheless, I will conduct robustness checks with respect to this choice. Figure 1 shows a timeseries plot of the average ETR, separately for all firms as well as for the subset of firms with a strictly positive ETR. The shaded areas indicate NBER recessions. The plot shows a large decrease for both measures of the ETR preceding the the Tax Reform Act of 1986, when the top marginal corporate tax rate was reduced from 46% to 34%. While the ETR further tends to fall during recessions, both time series exhibit substantial variation that is not related to business cycles. Table 1 shows summary statistics of the ETR by industry, this time including all observations. The average ETR di ers considerably between industries. It is highest in the consumer sector (which includes durable and nondurable consumption goods), on average 17%, and lowest in the utilities and financial sectors, where it averages 12% and 8%, respectively. 2.3 Sources of Tax Shields While all corporations face the same marginal federal tax rate schedule, numerous tax shields consisting of deductions, tax credits, as well as provisions for net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards cause the ETR to vary widely in the crosssection of firms. 6 In this section, I analyze the relative importance of the di erent sources of tax shields. Since about 75% of corporate income taxes are paid to the U.S. federal government, I proceed by analyzing the sources of tax shields at that level. To this end, I use the Statistics of Income published by the IRS. I rely on IRS data instead of financial reporting data from 6 Currently, all firms with pretax income greater than $75,000 face a statutory marginal tax rate of 34% or higher, with the marginal tax rate reaching 35% for all income above $18,000,000. In the CRSP/Compustat universe, which contains only publicly listed firms, over 99% of firms with positive pretax income face a marginal tax rate that is at most 1 percentage point below the marginal tax rate for the highest income during all years of the sample. As the firms in the sample have relatively large pretax income relative to the breakpoints on the marginal tax schedule, the e ect of progressivity in the tax code on the ETR is negligible. 4
6 Compustat for two reasons. First, corporate tax returns are confidential, and not all sources of tax shields can be inferred from financial statements. Second, tax and GAAP accounting standards serve di erent purposes, leading to di erences in the timing and types of income recognized under the two standards. The quantitatively most important example of such taxbook di erences is the accelerated depreciation of capital assets allowed for tax purposes compared to the straightline depreciation generally required by GAAP. 7 The IRS data provides the sum for all firms of various income statement items. In Table 2, I present this information as a commonsized income statement with each position normalized by EBITDA. The sample includes all nonfinancial firms that report positive net income in Deductions for interest, amortization, and depreciation total 44% of EBITDA. Provisions that allow companies to o set current income with past net operating losses (NOL carryforwards) amount to a further 7% of EBITDA, leaving 49% subject to tax. Income tax before credits is 17% of EBITDA and is reduced by the foreign tax credit, which serves to avoid doubletaxation, and several general business tax credits which are used to incentivize certain behavior (like investment in clean energy). Total credits are 11% of EBITDA, leaving a taxburden of 11% of EBITDA. Note that the tax rate implied by the income subject to tax and the income before credits is 35%, exactly equal to the current statutory rate in the highest income bracket. In 2012, tax shields lowered the tax burden from the statutory 35% to a much lower e ective tax rate of 11% (Total Income Tax divided by EBITDA). The second column shows the percent contribution of each type of tax shield to this reduction. The most important tax shields arise from depreciation and the conceptually similar amortization with 28% and 8%, respectively. Interest expense is responsible for about one quarter of total tax shields. Provisions for NOL carryforwards make up 10% of total tax shields and the foreign and general business credits make up 21% and 4%, respectively. 2.4 FamaMacBeth Regressions As in Fama and Macbeth (1973), I run monthly crosssectional regressions of excess returns Rt+1 i on lagged regressors, including the ETR and a vector of controls Xi t,i.e. R i t+1 = 0,t+1 + 1,t+1 ETR i t + 0 2,t+1X i t + i t+1. 7 For a detailed treatment of di erences between financial and tax reporting, see e.g. Plesko (2003). 8 The sample further excludes firms that report income on forms 1120S, 1120REIT, 1120RIC, which apply to small business that do not pay corporate income taxes as well as certain types of realestate and investment companies. 5
7 The characteristics Xt i are the 12 months rolling CAPM Beta (Beta), the log of market capitalization (ME), the log of the booktomarket ration (BM), momentum based on the prior 12 moths stock return (Mom), asset growth (AG), profitability as in Fama and French (2014) (Prof), cash flows (CF), financial leverage (LevF), and operating leverage (LevO). Accounting data for a given fiscal year are updated in June of the following year and financial data are updated monthly. The sample excludes financial firms. To control for industry e ects, I demean the ETR regressor for each of the FamaFrench 49 industries, each period. Table 3 shows summary statistics for the firm characteristics, including averages of crosssectional Pearson correlation coe cients. The ETR is most closely correlated with cash flows and profitability, with an average Pearson correlation of 0.5 and 0.61, respectively. The ETR is moderately negatively related to financial leverage, as expected, and moderately positively related to firm size, consistent with prior research (e.g. Zimmerman (1983)). The ETR is essentially unrelated to market beta, the booktomarket ratio, momentum, and operating leverage. Table 4 shows the results of the FamaMacBeth regressions and reports timeseries averages of the monthly crosssectional regression coe cients. The reported tstatistics use Newey and West (1987) standard errors and are robust to autocorrelation in the crosssection and timeseries. For most specifications, the monthly coe cient of ETR is close to This implies that the predicted return di erential between a firm with a zero ETR and one whose ETR equals the current statutory tax rate of 35% is 2.31% per year ( ). The ETR coe cient is also highly statistically significant in all specifications, with tstatistics mostly around 3 and never below The only control variable that meaningfully reduces the ETR coe cient is profitability in specification (5), which produces an ETR coe cient of In specification (10), which includes all control variables, the ETR coe cient is 0.38 and virtually the same as in specification (5) with profitability as the only control. 2.5 Portfolio Sorts and Factor Pricing I proceed by analyzing the return premium for hightax stocks using portfolio sorts. Each year, at the end of June, I sort stocks into ten portfolios based on their ETR. Similar to the previous section, I demean the sorting variable each year by industry, using the FamaFrench 49 industries. Table 5 shows average firm characteristics across the ERT decile portfolios. H L shows the di erence in the average characteristic between the high and low tax portfolios. To set this number into perspective, I compare the HL spread for each characteristic to the spread that would result from a direct doublesort on that characteristic instead of on ETR and express it as a percentage (%sprd). The portfolio sorts paint a similar picture of the relationship between ETR and the other firm characteristics as the Pearson correlations in 6
8 3. The sort on the ETR measure is most closely related with cash flows and profitability, picking up 19% and 31% of the univariate spread in those variables, respectively. Table 6 shows average valueweighted returns for the decile portfolios as well as results for regressions on the FamaFrench 3factor and 5factor models. The 3factor model includes factors for the market return (MKT), size (SMB) and booktomarket (HML) while the 5 factor model adds factors for profitability (RMW) and investment (CMA). Tstatistics use Newey and West (1987) standard errors. The excess returns rise from 0.16% per month in the lowest tax portfolio to 0.64% per month in the highest tax portfolio, generating a return spread of 0.48% per month for the hedge portfolio that is highly statistically significant. The abnormal return (alpha) with respect to the 3factor model is large at 0.65% per month and highly statistically significant with a tstatistic of 5.0. When measured against the 5factor model, the abnormal return drops to 0.39% per month, but remains statistically significant with a tstatistic above 3. The reduction in the abnormal return is mostly due to a large and significant loading on the profitability factor. Consistent with the FamaMacBeth regressions, these results highlight the importance of controlling for profitability. Since the ETR and profitability are correlated in the data and the inclusion of the profitability factor reduces the abnormal return of the HL ETR strategy, I next examine how much of the excess return and abnormal return (alpha) remains after nonparametrically controlling for profitability. To this end, I perform doublesorts to construct ETR portfolios that exhibit only a minimal spread in average profitability. I first assign stocks into five portfolios based on profitability and then sort again into 5 portfolios based on the ETR measure within each profitability quintile, resulting in 25 total portfolios. I then combine portfolios across all profitability sorts, within each ETR quintile. Table 7 shows the characteristics of the doublesorted ETR portfolios. Most notably, the spread in the profitability characteristic is reduced to only 10% of the total univariate spread in that measure. Table 8 shows the average excess returns and results of factor model regressions for the doublesorted ETR portfolios. Both the average monthly return of the hedge portfolio as well as the abnormal return with respect to the 5factor model remain economically and statistically significant. The average excess return and the abnormal return are now both around 0.3% per month with tstatistics around Robustness To further investigate the sources of the ETR return premium, I conduct a series of robustness checks using alternative measures of the ETR as well as various subsamples of the data. Table 9 summarizes the results. Note that all robustness checks are performed as doublesorts, by first sorting on profitability, as described in the previous section. 7
9 I first investigate the importance of observations with zero or negative values for the ETR. Rows (2) and (3) of the table show that removing these observations from the sample does not significantly a ect the size and statistical significance of the return premium and abnormal return. To further explore the contribution of stocks with nonpositive ETRs, I define a binary measure of the ETR that distinguishes only between two kinds of firms, those with ETRs that are zero or negative and those with ETRs that are strictly positive. Row (4) reports the HL return for a strategy that is long the positive ETR stocks and short the portfolio of zero and negative ETR stocks. While a large portion of the return spread in the previous section (Table 8) appears to be driven by the return di erence in the lowest two ETR portfolios, the results here highlight the importance of di erentiating among the positive ETR stocks as well. While the excess return achieved by the binary ETR measure is almost as large as that of the benchmark measure, it is not statistically di erent from zero. Furthermore, the abnormal return of the binary measure is essentially zero. This results makes sense, given that in Table 8 the abnormal returns increase nearly monotonically across the ETR quintiles. Row (5) of the table shows that an alternative ETR measure that does not adjust for the change in working capital achieves a similar excess return spread as the benchmark measure while the abnormal return and its tstatistic fall by a bit less than a third. This result highlights the importance of using an ETR measure that is based on operating cash flows instead of earnings, as the former is less susceptible to di erences in accrual accounting procedures between firms. Row (6) shows that the results are not driven by microcaps, which I define as firms with a market capitalization below the 5th percentile of all NYSE stocks. Finally, Row (7) that the conclusions also hold when the sample is restricted to after the Tax Reform Act of Model In this section, I develop a simple, stylized model in which tax shields reduce the e ective operating leverage of a firm. As a result, hightax firms are more exposed to aggregate cash flow shocks and hence command a risk premium. 3.1 Setup There is a cross section of firms, indexed by i, whose revenues yt i are subject to an aggregate shock x t and an idiosyncratic shock zt. i Revenues are given by yt i =exp x t zt i,where x t+1 = x x t + x,t+1 8
10 z i t+1 = z z i t + i z,t+1 and the disturbances are independently normally distributed with x,t s N 0, 2 x and i z,t s N 0, 2 z. Firms incur a fixed operating cost f, so that pretax profits t i are given by t i = yt i f. The fixed cost serve two roles in the model: i) they introduce operating leverage and ii) they allow the model to match the frequency of negative pretax profits in the data. All firms face the same statutory tax rate but di er in their tax shield S i,whichthey can deduct from their taxable income to reduce their tax bill. The tax shield is fixed through time for each firm. I use it as reduced form that captures the e ects of tax deductions, credits, as well as NOL carryforwards. 9 Firms dividends, after corporate taxes, are then given by D i t = i t max i t S i, 0. I assume a standard exogenous loglinear pricing kernel M t+1 with ln (M t+1 ) = ln x,t x, where is the time discount rate and controls the price of risk of the aggregate productivity shock. The last term in the pricing kernel corrects for Jensen s inequality and normalizes it to ensure that E t [M t+1 ]=. Note that the pricing kernel implies a constant riskfree rate since the distribution of the innovation x,t+1 does not depend on the current productivity state. Finally, at time zero, firm s tax shields are drawn from a normal distribution S i N µ S, 2 S with mean µ S and volatility S. Negative draws are set equal to zero. 9 Tax deductions and credits work in mechanically the same way. Hence, I do not model them separately. To see this, consider a company with taxable income X, tax deductions D, and tax credits C, that faces tax rate. Taxes due are determined as tax = max ( max (X D, 0) C, 0). Since C 0, this can be rewritten as 0 1 tax = max X D C, 0C {z A. } S Hence, tax deductions and credits can be combined into a tax shield S that mechanically operates the same way as a tax deduction. 9
11 3.2 Calibration I calibrate the model targeting aggregate and firmlevel moments of bond and stock returns as well as cash flows. Importantly, I do not choose any parameters to improve the model s fit of the ETR return premium. Table 11 summarizes the calibration which is done at monthly frequency. I calibrate the two parameters that govern the SDF to match the riskfree rate and the Sharpe ratio of the market return. This yields a time discount rate of = and a price of risk of = 10. The persistence of the aggregate shock z =0.983 is set to a value commonly used for TFP. The volatility of the aggregate shock z =0.012 is chosen to match the volatility of the equity premium. The persistence of the idiosyncratic shock, z =0.95, its volatility z =0.05, and the fixed cost f =0.915 are chosen to match the average crosssectional volatility of stock returns, the ratio of operating cash flows to assets, as well as the percentage of firms with negative operating cash flows. The statutory tax rate is = 0.35, representing the current tax code. Finally, the mean of the tax shield distribution µ S =0.03 and its volatility S =0.15 are chosen to match the mean and volatility of the ETR in the data. 3.3 Results I compute modelimplied moments by simulating a panel of 500 firms for 10,000 periods. Table 11 summarizes the firmlevel and asset pricing moments and shows that they match their empirical counterparts well. Firms virtually never default in the model simulations, with the probability of a firm defaulting in a given year being %. Table 12 shows average returns for quintile portfolios sorted on the ETR in the model and compares them to the data. The return spread is 0.32% per month in the model and closely matches that in the data. The average ETR for each of the portfolios in the simulation also closely matches the data. To illustrate the model mechanism driving the ETR premium, Figure 2 plots the expected excess return of a firm as a function of the idiosyncratic productivity state exp (z t ) for di erent values of the tax shield S. The aggregate shock is held constant at its mean, x i t = 0. The figure shows that expected returns and productivity are inversely related. For low productivity shocks, the di erence between cash flows and fixed cost shrinks and the firm is riskier. This relation also emerges from other models (that typically are more complex and usually also incorporate capital investment with costly adjustment) that study the e ect of fixed operating 10
12 cost on asset returns. 10 This is also the mechanism underlying the value premium in Zhang (2005): Firms with low productivity shocks have low market values (relative to their book value), i.e. high booktomarket ratios, and high expected future returns. 11 In this setting, tax shields reduce the e ects of operating leverage, leading to lower expected returns. 4 Conclusion This paper examines the implications of corporate income taxes for the crosssection of stock returns. I show that firms that pay high e ective tax rates earn a return premium over firms that pay low e ective tax rates. This novel finding is a robust feature of the data that is not explained by firm characteristics or industry e ects. I propose a simple explanation: Di erences in e ective corporate tax rates are almost exclusively driven by the size of tax credits and deductions. Such tax shields reduce the e ective operating leverage of a firm. As a result, hightax firms are more exposed to aggregate cash flow shocks and hence command ariskpremium. 10 See e.g. Kogan and Papanikolaou (2012) for an overview of that literature. 11 In this type of model, the value premium is essentially a profitability discount. I.e these models are not consistent with the profitability premium that we observe in the data. The model presented here su ers the same shortcoming. 11
13 References Croce, M., T. Nguyen, and L. Schmid (2012): The market price of fiscal uncertainty, Journal of Monetary Economics, 59, Croce, M. M., H. Kung, L. Schmid, and T. T. Nguyen (2013): Fiscal Policies and Asset Prices, Review of Financial Studies. Fama, E. F. (1981): Stock Returns, Real Activity, Inflation, and Money, American Economic Review, 71, Fama, E. F. and K. R. French (1993): Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics, 33, (2014): A fivefactor asset pricing model, Journal of Financial Economics, 116, Fama, E. F. and J. D. Macbeth (1973): Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests, Journal of Political Economy, 81, French, K. R. and E. F. Fama (1992): The CrossSection of Expected Stock Returns, The Journal of FinanceJournal of Finance, 47, Gomes, F., A. Michaelides, and V. Polkovnichenko (2013): Fiscal policy and asset prices with incomplete markets, Review of Financial Studies. Gonedes, N. J. (1981): Evidence on the Tax E ects of Inflation Under Historical Cost Accounting Methods, The Journal of Business, 54, 227. Graham, J. R. (2007): Taxes and Corporate Finance, Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance SET, 1, Hagerman, R. L. and M. E. Zmijewski (1979): Some economic determinants of accounting policy choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1, Hanlon, M., S. K. Laplante, and T. Shevlin (2005): Evidence for the Possible Information Loss of Conforming Book Income and Taxable Income, Journal of Law and Economics, 48, Kogan, L. and D. Papanikolaou (2012): Economic Activity of Firms and Asset Prices, Annual Review of Financial Economics, 4,
14 McGrattan, E. and E. Prescott (2005): Taxes, Regulations, and the Value of US and UK Corporations, The Review of Economic Studies, 72, Newey, W. K. and K. D. West (1987): A Simple, Positive SemiDefinite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Metrix, Econometrica, 55, Pastor, L. and P. Veronesi (2012): Uncertainty about Government Policy and Stock Prices, Journal of Finance, LXVII, Plesko, G. a. (2003): An evaluation of alternative measures of corporate tax rates, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35, Schulz, F. (2015): On the Timing and Pricing of Dividends : Revisiting the Term Structure of the Equity Risk Premium,. Sialm, C. (2006a): Investment Taxes and Equity Returns, WP. (2006b): Stochastic taxation and asset pricing in dynamic general equilibrium, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30, (2009): Tax changes and asset pricing, American Economic Review, 99, Thomas, J. and F. X. Zhang (2011): Tax Expense Momentum, Journal of Accounting Research, 49, Zhang, L. (2005): The value premium, The Journal of Finance, 60, Zimmerman, J. L. (1983): Taxes and firm size, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5,
15 Figure 1: Average E ective Tax Rate This figure plots a time series of the equallyweighted crosssectional average of the e ective tax rate (ETR) for nonfinancial firms. Shaded areas indicate NBER recessions NBER Recessions all firms ETR> ETR
16 Table 1: E ective Tax Rates by Industry This table reports summary statistics for the e ective tax rate (ETR) by industry. The table shows the mean, standard deviation, 5th percentile (P 5 ), 95th percentile (P 95 ), and the number of firms (N). Statistics are computed across firms and then averaged over time. Data are from Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Consumer Manufacturing Utilities High Tech Health Finance Other Total Mean Std P P N 4,252 3, ,958 1,955 2,487 4,493 22,264 15
17 Table 2: Sources of Tax Shields This table reports parts of a commonsized income statement which is normalized by EBITDA as well as the importance of the various sources of tax shields in percent. Data are from the IRS 2012 Statistics of Income on Corporate Income Tax Returns. The sample includes only corporations that reported positive net income on forms other than 1120S, 1120REIT, 1120RIC. Value % of tax shields EBITDA (IRS rules) 100 Deductions 44 Interest 19 27% Amortization 6 8% Depreciation 19 28% Net income 56 NOL carryforward 7 10% Income subject to tax 49 Income tax before credits 17 Credits 6 Foreign tax 5 21% General business 1 4% Total income tax % 16
18 Table 3: Summary Statistics for Characteristics and Return Predictors This table reports summary statistics for firm characteristics. The table shows the mean, standard deviation, 5th percentile (P 5 ), 95th percentile (P 95 ), and Spearman rank correlations. Statistics are computed across firms and then averaged over time. ETR is the e ective tax rate. Beta is the 12months rolling CAPM beta. ME is market capitalization in billions of dollars. BM is the booktomarket ratio, Mom is the prior 12 months stock return, AG measures asset growth, Prof measures profitability as in Fama and French (2014), CF measures cash flows, LevF is financial leverage, and LevO measures operating leverage. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Characteristics ETR Beta ME BM Mom AG Prof CF LevF LevO Panel A: Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentiles Mean Std P P Panel B: Contemporaneous Correlations ETR Beta ME BM Mom AG Prof CF LevF LevO
19 Table 4: FamaMacBeth Regressions This table reports the results of FamaMacBeth regressions. Monthly stock returns are regressed on lagged firm characteristics. ETR is the e ective tax rate, demeaned by industry. Beta is the 12months rolling CAPM beta. ME is the log of market capitalization. BM is the log of the booktomarket ratio, Mom is the prior 12 months stock return, AG measures asset growth, Prof measures profitability as in Fama and French (2014), CF measures cash flows, LevF is financial leverage, and LevO measures operating leverage. The reported average slope coe cients are computed following Fama and Macbeth (1973). Tstatistics use Newey and West (1987) standard errors with 12 lags. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Reg ETR Beta ME BM Mom AG Prof CF LevF LevO [2.88] [0.53] [3.03] [2.96] [0.07] [2.29] [3.69] [2.95] [0.21] [2.78] [3.70] [2.26] [3.32] [0.08] [2.70] [3.09] [2.25] [6.24] [2.45] [0.11] [3.99] [3.66] [2.01] [3.76] [0.19] [3.67] [3.62] [3.18] [4.69] [3.17] [0.22] [2.71] [3.52] [2.16] [2.97] [2.67] [0.15] [2.98] [3.71] [2.14] [1.80] [2.94] [0.00] [2.76] [3.69] [2.10] [0.45] [2.67] [0.47] [3.87] [2.93] [1.92] [5.23] [4.35] [1.62] [1.79] [0.29] 18
20 Table 5: Characteristics of Tax Rate Portfolios This table reports average characteristics for 10 portfolios of stocks sorted by the e ective tax rate (ETR), which is demeaned by industry. Beta is the 12months rolling CAPM beta. ME is the log of market capitalization. BM is the log of the booktomarket ratio, Mom is the prior 12 months stock return, AG measures asset growth, Prof measures profitability as in Fama and French (2014), CF measures cash flows, LevF is financial leverage, and LevO measures operating leverage. Statistics are computed across firms and then averaged over time. HL refers the di erence of a particular characteristic between the high and low tax rate portfolios. As a frame of reference, %sprd expresses HL as a percentage of the HL spread that would be achieved by sorting directly on that characteristic. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Characteristics ETR Beta ME BM Mom AG Prof CF LevF LevO Low High HL %sprd 100% 7% 8% 3% 9% 9% 19% 31% 14% 9% 19
21 Table 6: Excess Returns and Factor Model Regressions for Tax Portfolios This table reports average excess returns and abnormal returns ( ), in percent per month, and factor loadings for the 10 portfolios of stocks sorted by their e ective tax rates (ETR), which is demeaned by industry. The factors are the market return (MKT), size (SMB), booktomarket (HML), profitability (RMW), and investment (CMA). HL refers to the zerocost portfolio that is long in the high tax stocks and short in the low tax stocks. Newey and West (1987) tstatistics that use 12 lags are reported in brackets. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Panel A: FamaFrench 3Factor Model Excess Return MKT SMB HML Low High HL tstat [3.41] [5.00] [2.74] [3.88] [0.16] Panel B: FamaFrench 5Factor Model Excess Return MKT SMB HML RMW CMA Low High HL tstat [3.41] [3.32] [2.39] [2.72] [1.26] [6.18] [1.88] 20
22 Table 7: Characteristics of ProfitabilityNeutral Tax Rate Portfolios This table reports average characteristics for doublesorted portfolios. I first assign stocks into five portfolios based on profitability and then sort again on the ETR measure (which has been demeaned by industry) within each portfolio, resulting in 25 portfolios. I then combine portfolios across all profitability sorts, within each ETR quintile. This procedure yields 5 ETR portfolios with nearly identical profitability characteristics. Beta is the 12months rolling CAPM beta. ME is the log of market capitalization. BM is the log of the booktomarket ratio, Mom is the prior 12 months stock return, AG measures asset growth, Prof measures profitability as in Fama and French (2014), CF measures cash flows, LevF is financial leverage, and LevO measures operating leverage. Statistics are computed across firms and then averaged over time. HL refers the di erence of a particular characteristic between the high and low tax rate portfolios. As a frame of reference, %sprd expresses HL as a percentage of the HL spread that would be achieved by sorting directly on that characteristic. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1970 to Characteristics of ProfitabilityNeutral ETR Portfolios ETR Beta ME BM Mom AG Prof CF LevF LevO Low High HL %sprd 100% 8% 11% 1% 7% 8% 10% 30% 21% 7% 21
23 Table 8: Excess Returns and Factor Model Regressions for Profitability Neutral Tax Rate Portfolios This table reports average excess returns and abnormal returns ( ), in percent per month, and factor loadings for doublesorted portfolios. I first assign stocks into five portfolios based on profitability and then sort again on the ETR measure (which has been demeaned by industry) within each portfolio, resulting in 25 portfolios. I then combine portfolios across all profitability sorts, within each ETR quintile. This procedure yields 5 ETR portfolios with nearly identical profitability characteristics. The factors are the market return (MKT), size (SMB), booktomarket (HML), profitability (RMW), and investment (CMA). HL refers to the zerocost portfolio that is long in the high tax stocks and short in the low tax stocks. Newey and West (1987) tstatistics that use 12 lags are reported in brackets. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1970 to Panel A: Profitabilityneutral ETR Portfolios Excess Return MKT SMB HML RMW CMA Low High HL tstat [2.94] [3.33] [3.61] [0.22] [1.66] [2.70] [1.12] 22
24 Table 9: Robustness of Tax Portfolio Performance This table reports average excess returns and abnormal returns ( ), in percent per month, and factor loadings for doublesorted portfolios. I first assign stocks into five portfolios based on profitability and then sort again on the ETR measure (which has been demeaned by industry) within each portfolio, resulting in 25 portfolios. I then combine portfolios across all profitability sorts, within each ETR quintile. This procedure yields 5 ETR portfolios with nearly identical profitability characteristics. The factors are the market return (MKT), size (SMB), booktomarket (HML), profitability (RMW), and investment (CMA). HL refers to the zerocost portfolio that is long in the high tax stocks and short in the low tax stocks. Row (1) reports results for the benchmark ETR measure. Row (2) excludes stocks with negative operating cash flows. Row (3) excludes stocks with negative tax expense. Row (4) analyzes the hedge portfolio that is long all stocks with strictly positive ETR and short all stocks with zero or negative ETR. Row (5) uses an alternative ETR measure that does not adjust for the change in working capital. Row (6) excludes microcaps, defined by firms with a market value below the 5th percentile of NYSE stocks. Rows (7) restricts the sample period to after the Tax Reform Act of Newey and West (1987) tstatistics that use 12 lags are reported in brackets. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1970 to Excess Return MKT SMB HML RMW CMA 1 Benchmark ETR measure HL tstat [2.94] [3.33] [3.61] [0.22] [1.66] [2.70] [1.12] 2 Excluding stocks with negative operating cash flows HL tstat [2.49] [3.27] [4.39] [0.85] [2.81] [1.31] [0.79] 3 Excluding stocks with negative tax expense HL tstat [3.69] [4.55] [3.99] [1.76] [2.02] [3.80] [1.26] 4 Hedge portfolio that is long ETR> 0 and short ETRapple 0 HL tstat [1.49] [0.29] [3.39] [4.18] [0.87] [10.15] [1.73] 5 ETR measure without adjustment for change in working capital HL tstat [2.78] [2.27] [2.56] [0.37] [1.78] [3.59] [1.70] 6 Excluding microcaps HL tstat [2.83] [3.13] [3.63] [0.47] [1.51] [3.26] [1.33] 7 After Tax Reform Act of 1986 HL tstat [2.75] [2.90] [3.19] [0.20] [2.55] [3.80] [1.46] 23
25 Table 10: Calibration This table summarizes the model calibration. The model is calibrated at monthly frequency. Parameter Value SDF Time discount rate = Price of risk = 10 Fixed cost f = Productivity shocks Persistence of aggregate shock x =0.983 Volatility of aggregate shock x = Persistence of idiosyncratic shock z =0.95 Volatility of idiosyncratic shock z = 0.05 Taxes Tax rate = 0.35 Mean of tax shields µ S =0.03 Volatility of tax shields S =
26 Table 11: Firmlevel Moments and Asset Prices in the Model This table reports average firmlevel and asset pricing moments from the model and the data. Model results are obtained by simulating a panel of 500 firms for 10,000 periods. Moments are annualized. Moment Model Data Firmlevel Frequency of negative operating cash flows Average e ective tax rate Average volatility of operating cash flows Asset prices Riskfree rate (%) Equity premium (%) Sharpe ratio Average volatility of returns (%)
27 Table 12: Tax Portfolios in the Model This table reports average characteristics for 5 portfolios of stocks sorted by their e ective tax rate (ETR) in the model and in the data. HL refers the di erence between the high and low tax rate portfolios. Model results are obtained by simulating a panel of 500 firms for 10,000 periods. Excess returns are in percent per month. Data are from CRSP and Compustat. The sample excludes financial firms and covers 1963 to Model Data Excess Return ETR Excess Return ETR Low T T T High HL
28 Figure 2: Risk Premia in the Model This figure plots the expected excess return of a firm in the model as a function of the idiosyncratic shock exp (z) for di erent values of the tax shield S S=0 S=µ S S=µ S + 1σ S= E[R  Rf] exp(z) 27
29 APPENDIX A Data Definitions I use the following definitions of variables: ETR is measured as the ratio of current taxes (TXC) to revenues (REVT) minus the sum of cost of goods sold (COGS), selling, general, and administrative expenses (XSGA), and the change in working capital (WCAPCH). Beta is the CAPM beta from rolling monthly regressions of the market return on the past 12 months of returns. ME is the market equity of the firm calculated as the product of the firms share price times the number of shares outstanding. BM is the ratio of book equity to market equity. Mom is the stock return over the prior 12 months period. As in Fama and French (2014), I construct asset growth AG as the percent change in total assets (AT) from two years ago to the prior year and measure profitability Prof as the ratio of their measure of operating cash flows (REVT  COGS  XSGA  XINT) to book equity (BE), where XINT is interest expense. CF is cash flows and is defined as the sum of depreciation and amortization (DP) plus income before extraordinary items (IB) divided by total assets (AT). Financial leverage LevF is defined as (DLC + DLTT) / (BE + DLC + DLTT), where DLC is debit in current liabilities, DLTT is long term debt total, and BE is book equity. Operating Leverage LevO is measured as the ratio of selling, general, and administrative expenses to total assets. 28
DOES 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 cross section of expected stock returns
The cross section of expected stock returns Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER This version: August 2014 Forthcoming in Critical Finance Review Tel: 6036468650; email: jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu.
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 informationOnline Appendix for External Equity Financing Shocks, Financial Flows, and Asset Prices
NOT FOR PUBLICATION Online Appendix for External Equity Financing Shocks, Financial Flows, and Asset Prices FREDERICO BELO, XIAOJI LIN, AND FAN YANG 1 This appendix contains tables and figures that supplement
More informationCan Investment Shocks Explain the Crosssection of Stock Returns?
Can Investment Shocks Explain the Crosssection of Stock Returns? Lorenzo Garlappi University of British Columbia Zhongzhi Song CKGSB This draft: August 2012 We are grateful to Laura Liu and seminar participants
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 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 informationInternet Appendix for Institutional Trade Persistence and Longterm Equity Returns
Internet Appendix for Institutional Trade Persistence and Longterm Equity Returns AMIL DASGUPTA, ANDREA PRAT, and MICHELA VERARDO Abstract In this document we provide supplementary material and robustness
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationInternet Appendix for Firm Level Productivity, Risk, and Return
Internet Appendix for Firm Level Productivity, Risk, and Return Ayşe İmrohoroğlu Şelale Tüzel July 2013 Abstract This Internet Appendix presents material that is supplemental to the main analysis and tables
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 informationFinance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.
Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. Tradability of Output, Business Cycles, and Asset Prices Mary H.
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 informationTax expense momentum
Tax expense momentum Jacob Thomas Yale University School of Management (203) 4325977 jake.thomas@yale.edu Frank Zhang Yale University School of Management (203) 4327938 frank.zhang@yale.edu July 2010
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 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 informationAsset Pricing Implications of Firms Financing Constraints.
Asset Pricing Implications of Firms Financing Constraints. Joao F. Gomes, Amir Yaron, and Lu Zhang October 2003 Abstract We use a productionbased asset pricing model to investigate whether financial market
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 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 informationDeterminants of shortterm debt financing
ABSTRACT Determinants of shortterm debt financing Richard H. Fosberg William Paterson University In this study, it is shown that both theories put forward to explain the amount of shortterm debt financing
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 informationWhy Does the Change in Shares Predict Stock Returns? William R. Nelson 1 Federal Reserve Board January 1999 ABSTRACT The stock of firms that issue equity has, on average, performed poorly in subsequent
More informationThe Cost of Capital of the Financial Sector
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports The Cost of Capital of the Financial Sector Tobias Adrian Evan Friedman Tyler Muir Staff Report No. 755 December 2015 This paper presents preliminary findings
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 informationStock market booms and real economic activity: Is this time different?
International Review of Economics and Finance 9 (2000) 387 415 Stock market booms and real economic activity: Is this time different? Mathias Binswanger* Institute for Economics and the Environment, University
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 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 informationWhat Do ShortTerm Liquidity Ratios Measure? What Is Working Capital? How Is the Current Ratio Calculated? How Is the Quick Ratio Calculated?
What Do ShortTerm Liquidity Ratios Measure? What Is Working Capital? HOCK international  2004 1 HOCK international  2004 2 How Is the Current Ratio Calculated? How Is the Quick Ratio Calculated? HOCK
More informationBrokerDealer Leverage and the CrossSection of Stock Returns 1
BrokerDealer Leverage and the CrossSection of Stock Returns 1 Tobias Adrian, Erkko Etula and Tyler Muir Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Northwestern University Bank of England, January 5, 11 1
More informationExpected default frequency
KM Model Expected default frequency Expected default frequency (EDF) is a forwardlooking measure of actual probability of default. EDF is firm specific. KM model is based on the structural approach to
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 informationInvestor recognition and stock returns
Rev Acc Stud (2008) 13:327 361 DOI 10.1007/s111420079063y Investor recognition and stock returns Reuven Lehavy Æ Richard G. Sloan Published online: 9 January 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media,
More informationThe Inventory Growth Spread
Frederico Belo University of Minnesota Xiaoji Lin London School of Economics and Political Science Previous studies show that firms with low inventory growth outperform firms with high inventory growth
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 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 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 Key Man Premium. Ryan D. Israelsen and Scott E. Yonker. November 21, 2011
The Key Man Premium Ryan D. Israelsen and Scott E. Yonker November 21, 2011 Abstract Using a novel measure from key man life insurance, we find that key human capital intensive firms earn positive abnormal
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 informationInternet Appendix for When is a Liability not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10Ks * Tim Loughran and Bill McDonald
Internet Appendix for When is a Liability not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10Ks * Tim Loughran and Bill McDonald In the Internet Appendix we provide a detailed description of the parsing
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 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 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 informationTrade Date The date of the previous trading day. Recent Price is the closing price taken from this day.
Definition of Terms Price & Volume Share Related Institutional Holding Ratios Definitions for items in the Price & Volume section Recent Price The closing price on the previous trading day. Trade Date
More informationThe predictive power of investment and accruals
The predictive power of investment and accruals Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu Robert J. Resutek University of Georgia rresutek@uga.edu This version: April 2015
More informationJonathan A. Milian. Florida International University School of Accounting 11200 S.W. 8 th St. Miami, FL 33199. jonathan.milian@fiu.
Online Appendix Unsophisticated Arbitrageurs and Market Efficiency: Overreacting to a History of Underreaction? Jonathan A. Milian Florida International University School of Accounting 11200 S.W. 8 th
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 informationThe Tangent or Efficient Portfolio
The Tangent or Efficient Portfolio 1 2 Identifying the Tangent Portfolio Sharpe Ratio: Measures the ratio of rewardtovolatility provided by a portfolio Sharpe Ratio Portfolio Excess Return E[ RP ] r
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 informationBetting Against Beta
Betting Against Beta Andrea Frazzini AQR Capital Management LLC Lasse H. Pedersen NYU, CEPR, and NBER Preliminary Copyright 2010 by Andrea Frazzini and Lasse H. Pedersen Motivation Background: Security
More informationFINANCIAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CANADIAN BUSINESS. Concepts, Sources and Methods
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CANADIAN BUSINESS Concepts, Sources and Methods Symbols The following standard symbols are used in Statistics Canada publications:.. figures not available.... figures
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 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 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 informationMBA 8230 Corporation Finance (Part II) Practice Final Exam #2
MBA 8230 Corporation Finance (Part II) Practice Final Exam #2 1. Which of the following input factors, if increased, would result in a decrease in the value of a call option? a. the volatility of the company's
More informationVI. Real Business Cycles Models
VI. Real Business Cycles Models Introduction Business cycle research studies the causes and consequences of the recurrent expansions and contractions in aggregate economic activity that occur in most industrialized
More informationLuck versus Skill in the CrossSection of Mutual Fund Returns
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXV, NO. 5 OCTOBER 2010 Luck versus Skill in the CrossSection of Mutual Fund Returns EUGENE F. FAMA and KENNETH R. FRENCH ABSTRACT The aggregate portfolio of actively managed
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 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 information( ) ( )( ) ( ) 2 ( ) 3. n n = 100 000 1+ 0.10 = 100 000 1.331 = 133100
Mariusz Próchniak Chair of Economics II Warsaw School of Economics CAPITAL BUDGETING Managerial Economics 1 2 1 Future value (FV) r annual interest rate B the amount of money held today Interest is compounded
More informationFinancial Reporting and Analysis Chapter 13 Solutions Income Tax Reporting Exercises
Financial Reporting and Analysis Chapter 13 Solutions Income Tax Reporting Exercises Exercises E131. Determining current taxes payable (AICPA adapted) The amount of current income tax liability that would
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 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 informationt = 1 2 3 1. Calculate the implied interest rates and graph the term structure of interest rates. t = 1 2 3 X t = 100 100 100 t = 1 2 3
MØA 155 PROBLEM SET: Summarizing Exercise 1. Present Value [3] You are given the following prices P t today for receiving risk free payments t periods from now. t = 1 2 3 P t = 0.95 0.9 0.85 1. Calculate
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 informationFirm Fundamentals and Variance Risk Premiums
Firm Fundamentals and Variance Risk Premiums Matthew R. Lyle and James P. Naughton August 2015 Abstract We develop and empirically test an accountingbased model that ties two firm characteristics, booktomarket
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 informationLiquidity analysis: Length of cash cycle
2. Liquidity analysis: Length of cash cycle Operating cycle of a merchandising firm: number of days it takes to sell inventory + number of days until the resulting receivables are converted to cash Acquisition
More informationInternet Appendix to Target Behavior and Financing: How Conclusive is the Evidence? * Table IA.I Summary Statistics (Actual Data)
Internet Appendix to Target Behavior and Financing: How Conclusive is the Evidence? * Table IA.I Summary Statistics (Actual Data) Actual data are collected from Industrial Compustat and CRSP for the years
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 informationThe Tax Benefits and Revenue Costs of Tax Deferral
The Tax Benefits and Revenue Costs of Tax Deferral Copyright 2012 by the Investment Company Institute. All rights reserved. Suggested citation: Brady, Peter. 2012. The Tax Benefits and Revenue Costs of
More informationISS Governance Services Proxy Research. Company Financials Compustat Data Definitions
ISS Governance Services Proxy Research Company Financials Compustat Data Definitions June, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Data Page Overview 3 Stock Snapshot 1. Closing Price 3 2. Common Shares Outstanding 3 3.
More informationProduct Market Competition, R&D Investment and Stock Returns
Product Market Competition, R&D Investment and Stock Returns Lifeng Gu December, 2012 Abstract In this article, I consider the interaction between product market competition and investment in research
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 informationAggregate Earnings and Corporate Bond Markets
Aggregate Earnings and Corporate Bond Markets Xanthi Gkougkousi January 25, 2012 ABSTRACT I show that aggregate earnings changes are negatively related to investmentgrade corporate bond market returns
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 informationReconciling Corporation Book and Tax Net Income, Tax Years 19952001
Reconciling Corporation Book and Tax Net Income, Tax Years 19952001 Data Release D ifferences in accounting rules for financial (book) and tax reporting purposes can lead to differences in the amount
More informationInvestors and Central Bank s Uncertainty Embedded in Index Options OnLine Appendix
Investors and Central Bank s Uncertainty Embedded in Index Options OnLine Appendix Alexander David Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary Pietro Veronesi University of Chicago Booth School
More informationInternet Appendix to CAPM for estimating cost of equity capital: Interpreting the empirical evidence
Internet Appendix to CAPM for estimating cost of equity capital: Interpreting the empirical evidence This document contains supplementary material to the paper titled CAPM for estimating cost of equity
More informationCost of Capital Presentation for ERRA Tariff Committee Dr. Konstantin Petrov / Waisum Cheng / Dr. Daniel Grote April 2009 Experience you can trust.
Cost of Capital Presentation for ERRA Tariff Committee Dr. Konstantin Petrov / Waisum Cheng / Dr. Daniel Grote April 2009 Experience you can trust. Agenda 1.Definition of Cost of Capital a) Concept and
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 informationEQUITY STRATEGY RESEARCH.
EQUITY STRATEGY RESEARCH. Value Relevance of Analysts Earnings Forecasts September, 2003 This research report investigates the statistical relation between earnings surprises and abnormal stock returns.
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 informationEconomic Feasibility Studies
Economic Feasibility Studies ١ Introduction Every long term decision the firm makes is a capital budgeting decision whenever it changes the company s cash flows. The difficulty with making these decisions
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 informationHEALTHCARE FINANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. Online Appendix A Financial Ratios
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Online Appendix A Financial Ratios INTRODUCTION In Chapter 17, we indicated that ratio analysis is a technique commonly used to
More informationThe effect of R&D on future returns and earnings forecasts
Rev Account Stud DOI 10.1007/s111420119179y The effect of R&D on future returns and earnings forecasts Dain C. Donelson Robert J. Resutek Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract Prior studies
More informationDo Investors Use CEOs Stock Option Exercises as Signals for Future Firm Performance? Evidence from the PostSox Era
Do Investors Use CEOs Stock Option Exercises as Signals for Future Firm Performance? Evidence from the PostSox Era Eli Bartov New York University Stern School of Business 44 West 4 th St., New York, NY
More informationCorporate Investment and Cash Flow in the U.S. Restaurant Industry ABSTRACT. Keywords: restaurant, franchise, investment, cash flow, sensitivity.
Corporate Investment and Cash Flow in the U.S. Restaurant Industry BoBae Min College of Hotel and Tourism Management Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Rep. of Korea and YeoJin Shin College of Hotel and Tourism
More informationStock returns, aggregate earnings surprises, and behavioral finance $
Journal of Financial Economics 79 (2006) 537 568 www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Stock returns, aggregate earnings surprises, and behavioral finance $ S.P. Kothari a, Jonathan Lewellen b,c, Jerold B. Warner
More informationInvesting in Foreign Currency is like Betting on your Intertemporal Marginal Rate of Substitution.
Investing in Foreign Currency is like Betting on your Intertemporal Marginal Rate of Substitution. Hanno Lustig UCLA and NBER Adrien Verdelhan Boston University December 13, 2005 Abstract Investors earn
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 informationFinancial Analysis Project. Apple Inc.
MBA 606, Managerial Finance Spring 2008 Pfeiffer/Triangle Financial Analysis Project Apple Inc. Prepared by: Radoslav Petrov Course Instructor: Dr. Rosemary E. Minyard Submission Date: 5 May 2008 Petrov,
More informationFundamental Analysis: A comparison of Financial Statement Analysis Driven and Intrinsic. Value Driven Approaches. Kevin Li kevin.li@rotman.utoronto.
July 22 nd 2014 Preliminary and Incomplete Do not cite without permission Fundamental Analysis: A comparison of Financial Statement Analysis Driven and Intrinsic Value Driven Approaches Kevin Li kevin.li@rotman.utoronto.ca
More informationChapter 7. . 1. component of the convertible can be estimated as 1100796.15 = 303.85.
Chapter 7 71 Income bonds do share some characteristics with preferred stock. The primary difference is that interest paid on income bonds is tax deductible while preferred dividends are not. Income bondholders
More information