Knowledge that Transforms

We use a robust regression estimator to analyze the risk premia on size and book‐to‐market. We find that the risk premium on size that was estimated by Fama and French (1992) completely disappears when the 1 percent most extreme observations are trimmed each month. We also show that the negative average of the monthly size coefficients reported by Fama and French can be entirely explained by the 16 months with the most extreme coefficients. We argue that further investigation of these results could lead to an understanding of the economic forces underlying the size effect, and may also yield important insights into how firms grow.

This article develops a model of international equity portfolio investment flows based on differences in informational endowments between foreign and domestic investors. It is shown that when domestic investors possess a cumulative information advantage over foreign investors about their domestic market, investors tend to purchase foreign assets in periods when the return on foreign assets is high and to sell when the return is low. The implications of the model are tested using data on United States (U.S.) equity portfolio flows.

Fama and French (1992) document a significant relation between firm size, book‐to‐market ratios, and security returns for nonfinancial firms. Because of their initial interest in leverage as an explanatory variable for security returns, Fama and French exclude from their analysis financial firms, thus creating a natural holdout sample on which to test the robustness of their results. We document that the relation between firm size, book‐to‐market ratios, and security returns is similar for financial and nonfinancial firms. In addition, we present evidence that survivorship bias does not significantly affect the estimated size or book‐to‐market premiums in returns. Our results indicate data‐snooping and selection biases do not explain the size and book‐to‐market patterns in returns.

We examine the relationship between stock prices and market segmentation induced by ownership restrictions in Mexico. The focus is on multiple classes of equity that differentiate between foreign and domestic traders, and between domestic individuals and institutions. Significant stock price premia are documented for shares not restricted to a particular investor group. We analyze the theoretical and empirical determinants of premia across firms and over time. In addition to economy‐wide factors, segmentation reflects the relative scarcity of unrestricted shares. The results provide additional support for Stulz and Wasserfallen's (1995) hypothesis that firms discriminate between investor groups with different demand elasticities.

We compare initial offer prices in privatizations to initial prices in public offerings of private companies. The evidence indicates that government officials in the United Kingdom underprice IPOs significantly more than their private company counterparts. In Canada and Malaysia, however, the opposite is true. There does not appear to be a general tendency for privatizations to be underpriced to a greater degree than private company IPOs. We provide additional evidence on the determinants of privatization initial returns. Our findings indicate that initial returns are significantly higher in relatively primitive capital markets and for privatized companies in regulated industries.

In this article we compare three models of the stochastic behavior of commodity prices that take into account mean reversion, in terms of their ability to price existing futures contracts, and their implication with respect to the valuation of other financial and real assets. The first model is a simple one-factor model in which the logarithm of the spot price of the commodity is assumed to follow a mean reverting process. The second model takes into account a second stochastic factor, the convenience yield of the commodity, which is assumed to follow a mean reverting process. Finally, the third model also includes stochastic interest rates. The Kalman filter methodology is used to estimate the parameters of the three models for two commercial commodities, copper and oil, and one precious metal, gold. The analysis reveals strong mean reversion in the commercial commodity prices. Using the estimated parameters, we analyze the implications of the models for the term structure of futures prices and volatilities beyond the observed contracts, and for hedging contracts for future delivery. Finally, we analyze the implications of the models for capital budgeting decisions.

We investigate the long-run underperformance of recent initial public offering (IPO) firms in a sample of 934 venture-backed IPOs from 1972–1992 and 3,407 nonventure-backed IPOs from 1975–1992. We find that venture-backed IPOs outperform non-venture-backed IPOs using equal weighted returns. Value weighting significantly reduces performance differences and substantially reduces underperformance for nonventure-backed IPOs. In tests using several comparable benchmarks and the Fama-French (1993) three factor asset pricing model, venture-backed companies do not significantly underperform, while the smallest nonventure-backed firms do. Underperformance, however, is not an IPO effect. Similar size and book-to-market firms that have not issued equity perform as poorly as IPOs.

Price limit advocates claim that price limits decrease stock price volatility, counter overreaction, and do not interfere with trading activity. Conversely, price limit critics claim that price limits cause higher volatility levels on subsequent days (volatility spillover hypothesis), prevent prices from efficiently reaching their equilibrium level (delayed price discovery hypothesis), and interfere with trading due to limitations imposed by price limits (trading interference hypothesis). Empirical research does not provide conclusive support for either positions. We examine the Tokyo Stock Exchange price limit system to test these hypotheses. Our evidence supports all three hypotheses suggesting that price limits may be ineffective.

This paper analyzes the timing of CEO stock option awards, as a method of investigating corporate managers’ influence over the terms of their own compensation. In a sample of 620 stock option awards to CEOs of Fortune 500 companies between 1992 and 1994, I find that the timing of awards coincides with favorable movements in company stock prices. Patterns of companies’ quarterly earnings announcements are consistent with an interpretation that CEOs received stock option awards shortly before favorable corporate news. I evaluate and reject several alternative explanations of the results, including insider trading and the manipulation of news announcement dates.