Why does operating profitability predict returns? New evidence on risk versus mispricing explanations

Abstract

Abstract This study develops new evidence on risk versus mispricing explanations of the well‐known profitability premium. First, we examine whether exposure to expected downside risk is a plausible explanation. We find that high profitability is associated with both lower ex ante and ex post probabilities of future price crashes. Thus, less profitable firms exhibit greater downside risk than highly profitable firms, making a downside risk explanation implausible. Although this fact is overlooked by the market in general, it is anticipated by options traders; we find that put options of low profitability firms are relatively more expensive. Simultaneously, these firms do not exhibit greater probability of jumps, indicating that volatility(risk)‐based explanations for the profitability premium are unlikely to be descriptive. Second, we find that the sticky‐expectations model of Bouchaud et al. (2019, The Journal of Finance , 74, 639–674) only partially explains the profitability premium. While on average, analysts' forecast revisions correct in the same direction as recent profitability, the profitability premium still exhibits a strong relationship to the non‐sticky component of analysts' forecast revisions. Third, institutional investors trade profitability‐based signals but do so with a delay, likely contributing to the premium. Overall, our evidence favours the explanation that the profitability premium is related to investor mispricing of potential downside risk and provides greater clarity on recent findings in the literature.