流动性、动量、规模和账面市值对异质性样本股票定价的影响比较:来自亚洲的证据

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Pub Date : 2016-10-12 DOI:10.1111/fmii.12078
Bruce Hearn
{"title":"流动性、动量、规模和账面市值对异质性样本股票定价的影响比较:来自亚洲的证据","authors":"Bruce Hearn","doi":"10.1111/fmii.12078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper compares the size and book-to-market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman (<span>1993</span>) with two Liu (<span>2006</span>) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra-market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.</p>","PeriodicalId":39670,"journal":{"name":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","volume":"25 4","pages":"253-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/fmii.12078","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the Efficacy of Liquidity, Momentum, Size and Book-to-Market Value Factors in Equity Pricing on a Heterogeneous Sample: Evidence from Asia\",\"authors\":\"Bruce Hearn\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fmii.12078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper compares the size and book-to-market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman (<span>1993</span>) with two Liu (<span>2006</span>) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra-market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments\",\"volume\":\"25 4\",\"pages\":\"253-330\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/fmii.12078\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文比较了Fama and French(1993)和Jagadeesh and Titman(1993)的动量(Momentum)的规模和账面市值因子与Liu(2006)分别由1年和1个月再平衡形成的两个流动性因子。对所有亚洲国家股票市场的顶级蓝筹股进行了异质性和综合性样本分析,并对2000年1月至2014年8月期间仅针对日本和不包括日本的亚洲形成的子样本进行了进一步区分。我们的实证结果表明,基于增强型资本资产定价模型(CAPM)框架的多因素时不变定价模型在存在显著的市场间和市场内分割的情况下无法解释股票收益的横截面。然而,另一种基于时变参数规范并使用相同因素集的模型规范在解释整个宇宙的股票收益横截面方面产生了显着增强。我们发现动量因素在很大程度上缺乏显著性,而基于CAPM +流动性因素的时变双因素模型是最优的。流动性因素为Liu(2006),每年进行再平衡。我们的发现对于寻求适当因素和建模技术来对冲风险的投资经理以及寻求降低股权资本成本的公司财务经理都很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparison of the Efficacy of Liquidity, Momentum, Size and Book-to-Market Value Factors in Equity Pricing on a Heterogeneous Sample: Evidence from Asia

This paper compares the size and book-to-market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman (1993) with two Liu (2006) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra-market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments bridges the gap between the academic and professional finance communities. With contributions from leading academics, as well as practitioners from organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, the journal is equally relevant to both groups. Each issue is devoted to a single topic, which is examined in depth, and a special fifth issue is published annually highlighting the most significant developments in money and banking, derivative securities, corporate finance, and fixed-income securities.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Do banks adjust their capital when they face liquidity shortages? Evidence from U.S. commercial banks Piercing through the haze: Did PPP increase versus decrease bank efficiency? Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1