1 / 77

Return predictability and time-varying risk premium for 2014 workshop at UESTC

Return predictability and time-varying risk premium for 2014 workshop at UESTC. The Short of It: Investor Sentiment and Anomalies by Stambaugh, Yu, and Yuan (2012,JFE). This study explores the role of investor sentiment in abroad set of anomalies in cross-sectional stock returns.

alena
Download Presentation

Return predictability and time-varying risk premium for 2014 workshop at UESTC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Return predictability and time-varying risk premiumfor 2014 workshop at UESTC

  2. The Short of It: Investor Sentiment and Anomalies by Stambaugh, Yu, and Yuan (2012,JFE) • This study explores the role of investor sentiment • in abroad set of anomalies in cross-sectional stock returns. • 11 asset-pricing anomalies, including • Financial distress, • Net stock issues, • Total accruals, • momentum, • Gross profit-to-assets, • Asset growth, • return-on-assets (ROA), and • investment-to-assets.

  3. The investor sentiment index

  4. Sentiment and short-sale constraints • They consider a setting with • the presence of market-wide sentiment and • overpricing should be more prevalent than underpricing, • due to short-sale impediments. • Long-short strategies that exploit the anomalies exhibit profits consistent with this setting.

  5. Main findings • First, each anomaly is stronger (its long-short strategy is more profitable) following high levels of sentiment. • Second, the short leg of each strategy is more profitable following high sentiment. • Finally, sentiment exhibits no relation to returns on the long legs of the strategies.

  6. Liquidity Shocks and Stock Market Reactionsby Bali, Peng, Shen, and Tang (RFS, forthcoming) • Liquidity is time-varying, and • subject to shocks that have persistent effects • (that is, negative liquidity shocks predict lower future liquidity). • Studying market reactions to liquidity shocks can generate important insights • on how the market processes information about liquidity shocks and • on the information efficiency of financial markets.

  7. In theory • Given the positive relation between stock-level illiquidity and expected returns, • a persistent negative shock to a security’s liquidity should, • as pointed out by Acharya and Pedersen (2005), • result in low contemporaneous returns and • high future returns, and vice versa. • This prediction may not hold • in a market with frictions.

  8. two potential market frictions • There are two potential market frictions that • prevent public information from being incorporated in security prices: • limited investor attention • (small stocks, stocks with low analyst coverage and institutional ownership) and • illiquidity. • investor inattention can lead to underreaction to information.

  9. Liquidity shocks • This paper focuses on liquidity shocks, • which can be viewed as a type of public information on liquidity. • Compared with the direct and well defined information events, • liquidity shocks are not well defined and • their pricing implications are harder to interpret by average investors. • As a result, the stock market can underreact to liquidity shocks.

  10. Three measures of liquidity shocks • 1. the negative difference between Amihud’s (2002) illiquidity measure and its past 12-month average. • 2. liquidity shocks using an ARMA(1,1) specification for Amihud illiquidity. • 3. the changes in bid-ask spreads.

  11. Main findings • Decile portfolios • long in stocks with positive liquidity shocks and short in stocks with negative liquidity shocks • generate one-month-ahead raw and risk-adjusted returns of • 0.75% to 1.23% per month for equal-weighted portfolios, and 0.67% to 1.17% for value-weighted portfolios. • The predictive power of liquidity shocks on future returns • remains economically and statistically significant for up to six months. • This evidence suggests that • the market underreacts to stock-level liquidity shocks.

  12. the underlying mechanisms • the positive link • between liquidity shocks and future stock returns is indeed stronger • for stocks that receive less attention • (small stocks, stocks with low analyst coverage and institutional ownership), • as well as for less liquid stocks. • Both investor inattention and illiquidity can • drive stock market underreactions to liquidity shocks, • but investor attention is a more dominant factor than illiquidity.

  13. Controlling for liquidity risk and … • The results remain significant after controlling for • the level of illiquidity, • exposures to systematic liquidity risks, and • the volatility of liquidity. • The results hold as well after controlling for other risk factors…

  14. Contributions • Provide the first piece of evidence of • Stock market underreaction to stock-level liquidity shocks. • Provide evidence that • the theory of investor inattention is important • in understanding stock market underreactions to liquidity shocks. • The results suggest that • liquidity shocks and • how the stock market reacts • are important in predicting the cross-section of future stock returns.

  15. Share issuance and cross-sectional returnsPontiff and Woodgate (2008, JF) • Share issuance occurs as a firm purchases or sells its own stock. • Some participants in the long-run return debate argue that • post-SEO and post-stock merger long-run returns are abnormally low, and that • post-share repurchase long-run returns are abnormally high. • This debate motivates them to examine • whether share issuance can be used to forecast stock returns in the cross-section.

  16. three hypotheses • Combining market-wide sentiment with Miller’s argument about the effect of short-sale impediments leads to three hypotheses. • The first hypothesis is that • the anomalies should be stronger following periods of high investor sentiment.

  17. Main findings • Post-1970, share issuance exhibits a strong cross-sectional ability to predict stock returns. • This predictive ability is more statistically significant than the individual predictive ability of size, book-to-market, or momentum. • They estimate the issuance relation pre-1970 and find no statistically significant predictive ability for most holding periods.

  18. Implication • The post-1970 results are consistent with an opportunistic view of capital structure • whereby decision makers (insiders) repurchase or sell shares • in order to take advantage of variability in expected returns.

  19. Share issuance and cross-sectional returns: International evidenceMcLean, Pontiff, and Watanabe (2009, JFE) • Share issuance predicts cross-sectional returns • in a non-U.S. sample of stocks from 41 different countries. • Issuance predictability has greater statistical significance than either size or momentum, and is similar to book-to-market. • As in the U.S., the international issuance effect is robust across both small and large firms. • Unlike the U.S., the effect is driven more • by low returns after share creation • rather than positive returns following share repurchases.

  20. Cross-country differences • Issuance return predictability is stronger in countries • with greater issuance activity, • greater stock market development, and • stronger investor protection. • The results suggest that the share issuance effect is related to • the ease with which firms can issue and repurchase their shares. • Market-based economies???

  21. World markets for raising new capitalby Henderson, Jegadeesh and Weisbach (2006, JFE) • The financial markets are increasingly integrated globally. • Corporations now enjoy • not only a tremendous amount of flexibility in deciding • which type of security to issue to fund their investments, • but also in which location to issue these securities. • For instance, • firms in Europe can raise capital by issuing bonds, convertible bonds, or stocks in the U.S. or Japan.

  22. Research questions, which would broaden our understanding of corporate finance in a globally integrated environment. • To what extent do firms rely on domestic sources of capital, • and to what extent do they raise capital internationally? • Are some countries more dependent on foreign capital than others? • Do firms find it easier to raise some form of capital, • such as debt, more easily outside their borders • than other forms of capital, such as equity? • How do financial market conditions, and factors • such as interest rates and equity valuations, • affect the decision of what security to issue, and where to issue that security?

  23. MM theorem • In perfectly frictionless markets, MM (1958) theorem implies • just as the type of securities a firm issues is irrelevant, • the location in which these securities are issued is also irrelevant. • In reality, however, • market frictions, imperfectly integrated capital markets, and taxes • render the choice of marketplace an important consideration for practitioners. • This paper addresses a number of questions about • when and where firms raise capital and • what kinds of securities they issue to raise capital.

  24. reasons for raising capital internationally • 1. Expanding a shareholder base internationally • improves risk sharing and thereby lowers the cost of capital. • 2. Firms may raise capital and list their securities abroad • if transaction costs are lower in foreign markets than in domestic markets. • 3. When firms issue stock in countries with more stringent • capital market regulations and reporting standards than in their home countries, • they commit to abide by these higher standards. • Such a commitment can facilitate capital-raising throughout the world.

  25. reasons for raising capital internationally • 4. an important advantage of foreign debt is the potential • to hedge exchange rate risk. • For example, firms that realize significant revenues in foreign currencies can hedge their exchange rate risk by issuing debt in those currencies. • 5. from a tax perspective, the process for ‘‘allocating’’ • the interest deduction depends on where the bond is issued cross-country. • companies that derive significant foreign income • are likely to issue debt in the countries that generate the income. • 6. market timing: searching for cheaper capital anywhere

  26. Graham and Harvey’s (2001) survey of CFOs • Among these factors, a survey of chief financial officers • by Graham and Harvey (2001) • lists the hedging consideration as the most important factor for issuing foreign debt, • followed by tax considerations and interest rate timing.

  27. Findings_1 • During the 1990–2001 period, • firms raised about $25.3 trillion of new capital, • including $4.9 trillion from abroad, • Suggesting that cross-border security issues were a large part of corporate capital raising activity. • International debt issuances are substantially more common • than equity issuances, • with debt (equity) issues accounting for 87% (9%) of all securities issued internationally, and • about 20% (12%) of all public debt issuances.

  28. Findings_2 • A number of cross-country patterns are evident. • First, companies are drawn to liquid markets: • the U.S. and the U.K. are by far the most popular sources for new cross-border equity. • Firms from countries with illiquid equity markets issue a larger fraction of new equity outside their countries • than do firms from countries with relatively well-developed equity markets. • Moreover, proximity seems important: • firms are more likely to issue securities in countries that are geographically close to them.

  29. Findings_3 • European debt markets are more attractive to foreign issuers • than are European equity markets. • Finally, firms in the U.S. and Canada are by far • the largest issuers of nonconvertible preferred stock, • while convertible bonds are popular in Europe. • Large fractions of both preferred stock and convertibles are issued internationally, • although the total value of these securities is relatively small • compared to common equity and nonconvertible debt.

  30. Market timing • Does market timing play a role in firms’ decisions to issue debt or equity, both locally and internationally? • If firms time the market, • then aggregate domestic equity issues • should be negatively correlated with future market returns. • They also examine • whether, at the aggregate level, market timing considerations • affect firms’ decisions to raise equity abroad. • whether firms time their long-term debt issues, both • domestically and internationally, prior to increases in interest rates.

  31. Fig. 2. Average annual equity returns following above/below median equity issues.

  32. Fig. 3. Foreign timing of U.S. and U.K. equity markets.

  33. main results on market timing • First, firms are more likely to issue equity • when the stock market appears to be overvalued. • i.e., stock market returns are abnormally low following periods of high equity issues. • Second, international equity issues predict • future market returns in the countries in which firms issue equity. • Finally, firms time their long-term debt issues • prior to future increases in interest rates. • Thus, market timing considerations appear to be important in security issuance decisions in most countries.

  34. Reconciling the Return Predictability EvidenceLettau and Nieuwerburgh (2008, RFS) • The question of whether stock returns are predictable • has received an enormous amount of attention. • This is not surprising because the existence of return predictability • is not only of interest to practitioners but also • has important implications for financial models of risk and return. • Classic predictive variables are financial ratios, such as • the dividend-price ratio, • the earnings price ratio, and • the book-to-market ratio

  35. variations in expected returns • Growth rates of fundamentals, such as dividends or earnings, • are much less forecastable than returns, • suggesting that most of the variation of financial ratios is • due to variations in expected returns.

  36. Present value model Campbell and Shiller (1988)

  37. problems • Correct inference is problematic • because financial ratios are extremely persistent; • in fact, standard tests leave the possibility of unit roots open. • the statistical evidence of forecastability is weaker • once tests are adjusted for high persistence. • Financial ratios have poor out-of-sample forecasting power. • The forecasting relationship of returns and financial ratios exhibits significant instability over time. • in rolling 30-year regressions of annual log CRSP value-weighted returns on lagged log dividend-price ratios, • the OLS regression coefficient varies between zero and 0.5 and • the associated R2 ranges from close to zero to 30%, depending on the subsample.

  38. problems • In summary, the return predictability literature has yet to provide convincing answers to the following four questions: • What is the source of parameter instability? • Why is the out-of-sample evidence so much weaker than the in-sample evidence? • Why has even the in-sample evidence disappeared in the late 1990s? • Why are price ratios extremely persistent?

  39. A simple solution • The puzzling empirical patterns can be explained • if the steady-state mean of financial ratios has changed over the course of the sample period. • Such changes could be due to • changes in the steady-state growth rate of economic fundamentals resulting from • permanent technological innovations and/or • changes in the expected return of equity caused by, for example, improved risk sharing, • changes in stock market participation, • changes in the tax code, or • lower macroeconomic volatility.

  40. Implications • The implications for forecasting regressions with the dividend-price ratio are immediate. • First, in the presence of steady-state shifts, • a nonstationary dividend-price ratio is not a well-defined predictor and • this nonstationarity could cause problems. • Second, the dividend-price ratio must be adjusted to remove the • nonstationary component to render a stationary process.

  41. adjusted dividend-price series

  42. in-sample results • “adjusted” price ratios have favorable properties • compared to unadjusted price ratios. • In the full sample, the slope coefficient in regressions of • annual log returns on the lagged log dividend-price ratio • increases from 0.094 for the unadjusted ratio • to 0.235 and 0.455 for the adjusted ratio with one and two steady-state shifts, respectively. • the regression coefficients using adjusted price ratios as regressors • are more stable and significant over time. • similar differences exist for other price ratios, • such as the earnings-price ratio and the book-to-market ratio.

  43. Inferences • Taking changes in the long-run mean of the dividend-price ratio into account is crucial for forecasts of stock returns. • Forecasting with the unadjusted dividend-price ratio series • results in coefficient instability in the forecasting regression and • unreliable inference • (insignificance in small samples, and results depending on the subsample). • These disconcerting properties are due to a nonstationary component that shifts the mean of the dividend-price ratio.

  44. other financial ratios • the other financial ratios indicate a predictability pattern • similar to that of the dividend-price ratio. • Without an adjustment for the change in their long-run mean, • the relationship between 1-year ahead returns and financial ratios is unstable over time. • However, once we filter out the nonstationary component, • we find a stable forecasting relationship and a large predictability coefficient.

More Related