Firm sizes and book-to-market ratios are both highly correlated with the average returns of common stocks. Fama and French (1993) argue that the association between these characteristics and returns arise because the characteristics are proxies for nondiversifiable factor risk. In contrast, the evidence in this article indicates that the return premia on small capitalization and high book-to-market stocks does not arise because of the comovements of these stocks with pervasive factors. It is the characteristics rather than the covariance structure of returns that appear to explain the cross-sectional variation in stock returns.
This article examines the hypothesis that the superior return to so‐called value stocks is the result of expectational errors made by investors. We study stock price reactions around earnings announcements for value and glamour stocks over a 5‐year period after portfolio formation. The announcement returns suggest that a significant portion of the return difference between value and glamour stocks is attributable to earnings surprises that are systematically more positive for value stocks. The evidence is inconsistent with a risk‐based explanation for the return differential.
Using 947 acquisitions during 1970–1989, this article finds a relationship between the postacquisition returns and the mode of acquisition and form of payment. During a five‐year period following the acquisition, on average, firms that complete stock mergers earn significantly negative excess returns of −25.0 percent whereas firms that complete cash tender offers earn significantly positive excess returns of 61.7 percent. Over the combined preacquisition and postacquisition period, target shareholders who hold on to the acquirer stock received as payment in stock mergers do not earn significantly positive excess returns. In the top quartile of target to acquirer size ratio, they earn negative excess returns.
Financial economists have long debated whether monetary policy is neutral. This article addresses this question by examining how stock return data respond to monetary policy shocks. Monetary policy is measured by innovations in the federal funds rate and nonborrowed reserves, by narrative indicators, and by an event study of Federal Reserve policy changes. In every case the evidence indicates that expansionary policy increases ex‐post stock returns. Results from estimating a multi‐factor model also indicate that exposure to monetary policy increases an asset's ex‐ante return.
Using 947 acquisitions during 1970–1989, this article finds a relationship between the postacquisition returns and the mode of acquisition and form of payment. During a five-year period following the acquisition, on average, firms that complete stock mergers earn significantly negative excess returns of −25.0 percent whereas firms that complete cash tender offers earn significantly positive excess returns of 61.7 percent. Over the combined preacquisition and postacquisition period, target shareholders who hold on to the acquirer stock received as payment in stock mergers do not earn significantly positive excess returns. In the top quartile of target to acquirer size ratio, they earn negative excess returns.
Many dividend theories imply that changes in dividends have information content about the future earnings of the firm. We investigate this implication and find only limited support for it. Firms that increase dividends in year 0 have experienced significant earnings increases in years −1 and 0, but show no subsequent unexpected earnings growth. Also, the size of the dividend increase does not predict future earnings. Firms that cut dividends in year 0 have experienced a reduction in earnings in year 0 and in year −1, but these firms go on to show significant increases in earnings in year 1. However, consistent with Lintner's model on dividend policy, firms that increase dividends are less likely than nonchanging firms to experience a drop in future earnings. Thus, their increase in concurrent earnings can be said to be somewhat “permanent.” In spite of the lack of future earnings growth, firms that increase dividends have significant (though modest) positive excess returns for the following three years.
Substantial progress has been made in extending the Black-Scholes model to incorporate such features as stochastic volatility, stochastic interest rates and jumps.On the empirical front, however, it is not yet known whether and by how much each generalized feature will improve option pricing and hedging performance. This paper fills this gap by first developing an implementable option model in closed form that allows volatility, interest rates and jumps to bestochastic and that is parsimonious in the number of parameters. The model includes many known ones as special cases. Delta-neutral and single-instrument minimum-variance hedging strategies are derived analytically. Using S&P 500 options, we examine a set of alternative models from three perspectives: (1) internal consistency of implied parameters/volatility with relevant time-series data, (2)out-of-sample pricing and (3) hedging performance. The models of focus include the benchmark Black-Scholes formula and the ones that respectively allow for (i) stochastic volatility, (ii) both stochastic volatility and stochastic interest rates, and (iii) stochastic volatility and jumps.Overall, incorporating both stochastic volatility and random jumps produces the best pricing performance and the most internally-consistent implied-volatility process. Its implied volatility does not smile across moneyness. But, for hedging, adding either jumps or stochastic interest rates does not seem to improve performance any further once stochastic volatility is taken into account.
I document a delisting bias in the stock return data base maintained by the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). I find that delists for bankruptcy and other negative reasons are generally surprises and that correct delisting returns are not available for most of the stocks that have been delisted for negative reasons since 1962. Using over‐the‐counter price data, I show that the omitted delisting returns are large. Implications of the bias are discussed.
Recent studies have documented that firms conducting seasoned equity offerings have inordinately low stock returns during the five years after the offering, following a sharp run‐up in the year prior to the offering. This article documents that the operating performance of issuing firms shows substantial improvement prior to the offering, but then deteriorates. The multiples at the time of the offering, however, do not reflect an expectation of deteriorating performance. Issuing firms are disproportionately high‐growth firms, but issuers have much lower subsequent stock returns than nonissuers with the same growth rate.
Using data from the 1986 oil price decrease, I examine the capital expenditures of nonoil subsidiaries of oil companies. I test the joint hypothesis that 1) a decrease in cash/collateral decreases investment, holding fixed the profitability of investment, and 2) the finance costs of different parts of the same corporation are interdependent. The results support this joint hypothesis: oil companies significantly reduced their nonoil investment compared to the median industry investment. The 1986 decline in investment was concentrated in nonoil units that were subsidized by the rest of the company in 1985.