Knowledge that Transforms

Stoll and Whaley (1983) suggest large transaction costs may be responsible for the large risk-adjusted returns earned by small firm stocks. This study, using data from the AMEX as well as the NYSE, shows that investors can earn risk-adjusted excess returns after transaction costs by holding small firms for relatively short holding periods. Other literature that provides evidence that is inconsistent with the transaction costs hypothesis is cited.

This paper tests the hypothesis that the future distribution of payoffs provided by a common stock depends upon whether ownership of the stock also conveys control over the firm's activities. For 26 firms that had two classes of common stock outstanding, the class with superior voting rights traded at a premium relative to the other class. However, in four firms where the ownership structure of the firm also included a class of voting preferred stock, the class of common with superior voting rights traded at a significant discount relative to the class of common with inferior voting rights. The analysis suggests that there are both benefits and costs of corporate control.

The mean return computational method has a substantial effect on the estimated small firm premium. The buy-and-hold method, which best mimics actual investment experience, produces an estimated small-firm premium only one-half as large as the arithmetic and re-balanced methods which are often used in empirical studies. Similar biases can be expected in mean returns when securities are classified by any variable related to trading volume.

This paper investigates the rationale behind interfirm tender offers by examining the returns realized by the stockholders of firms that were the targets of unsuccessful tender offers and firms that have made unsuccessful offers. Our results suggest that the permanent positive revaluation of the unsuccessful target shares [documented by Dodd and Ruback (1977) and Bradley (1980)] is due primarily to the emergence of and/or the anticipation of another bid that would ultimately result in the transfer of control of the target resources. We also find that the rejection of a tender offer has differential effects on the share prices of the unsuccessful bidding firms depending upon whether the tender offer process results in a change in the control of target resources. On the basis of these results we conclude that acquisitions via tender offers are attempts by bidding firms to exploit potential synergies, not simply superior information regarding the ‘true’ value of the target resources.

In a recent paper Lee et al. derive a pricing formula which is significantly different from that of Black and Scholes. Their derivation is inconsistent due to their failure to recognize that the rate of return of an option written on an asset whose rate of return is lognormally distributed will not be lognormally distributed.

Prior theoretical derivations of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) bound an aggregate measure of the deviation of mean asset returns from that predicted by a linear pricing equation. It is conceivable, given this bound, that some assets might be badly mispriced by the model. In this paper, a more intuitive derivation of the factor pricing equation is presented which describes the deviation on an asset by asset basis. The deviation is shown to be small for assets in a realistic finite economy and is arbitrarily close to zero for those assets with arbitrarily small size relative to aggregate wealth. It follows that the linear pricing equation provides a good approximation for the mean returns of all traded assets.

A ‘tax-loss selling’ hypothesis has frequently been advanced to explain the ‘January effect’ reported in this issue by Keim. This paper concludes that U.S. tax laws do not unambiguously predict such an effect. Since Australia has similar tax laws but a July–June tax year, the hypothesis predicts a small-firm July premium. Australian returns show pronounced December–January and July–August seasonals, and a premium for the smallest-firm decile of about four percent per month across all months. This contrasts with the U.S. data in which the small-firm premium is concentrated in January. We conclude that the relation between the U.S. tax year and the January seasonal may be more correlation than causation.

This paper performs lower boundary condition tests based on rational pricing of call options and an implied standard deviation test based on the bid/ask prices of options. These efficiency tests attempt to closely approximate conditions in the option markets to avoid the pitfalls indicated by Phillips and Smith (1980). The tests use transactions data and account for the effects of stock and option bid/ask prices, simultaneity of stock and option prices, depth of market, execution lag and transaction costs. The small and relatively infrequent profits due to market mispricing disappear in the lower boundary tests when transaction costs are taken into account. Frequent violations of the tighter boundary conditions in the implied standard deviation test are reported, but the estimated profits cannot be unambiguously attributed to option market inefficiency.

Ross's Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) is a tractible and reasonable alternative to the mean-variance model. Nonetheless, understanding of the theory has been obscured by the complexity of the sequence economy models used for motivation. By contrast, we give a simple and direct derivation of the APT in a finite economy. Using an explicit bound on the deviations from APT prices across assets, a coarse calculation shows that theoretical deviations from APT pricing are negligible in our economy.

This paper is concerned with the size-related anomalies in stock returns reported by Banz (1981) and Reinganum (1981). They showed that small firms have tended to yield returns greater than those predicted by the traditional CAPM. We find that the size effect is linear in the logarithm of size, but reject the hypothesis that the ex ante excess return attributable to size is stable through time. We briefly analyze the Seemingly Unrelated Regression Model (SURM) and a two-step procedure as two alternative estimators of the size effect. Due to the instability of the effect, we find that the estimates are sensitive to the time period studied.