Upload
sephard
View
32
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fama French article summary and methodology is explained
Citation preview
Fama &French (1992) The Cross Section of Expected Stock Return
Research Question
The relation between beta and cross sectional return is flat; can the variation in average
return be explained by variables such as size, market value, leverage, earning-price ratio
etc?
• Banz (1981) discovers that size can be used in explaining average stock return because it appears that average return on small stock is too high despite their low β and it is usually too low on large stock. This may be used as an explanatory variable.
• Bhandari (1988) finds that leverage has explanatory power on average stock return and it is not captured by stock beta as it theoretically should be.
• Statman (1980) shows that average return is positively related to the ratio of a firm’s book value to common equity.
• Basu (1983) shows that earning per share ratio can also be used in explaining average return.
Main Results of the Study!
• Beta does not seem to help explain cross section of average return,
• Although leverage and E/P may have explanatory power when tested alone their effect is dominated by size and book-to-market variables.
• This leads to the conclusion that risk might be captured by these two variables.
Data & Methodology
• All the nonfinancial firms that are listed in NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ whose data is available in CRSP from 1963 to 1990.
• NYSE is as used as the market portfolio proxy.• Cross sectional regressions
Methodology Con’t• Form 10 size based portfolio and rank them,• Due to -0,98% correlation between size and β
subdivide each group into 10 subgroups based on their β, unrelated to the size,
• Calculate 12 month return using monthly returns on each portfolio and find the average return for full period,
• Calculate betas via time series regression over the whole period (330 months),
• Run a cross sectional regression.
Apperantly β has no significant explanatory power!
• Size related 10 portfolios show strong relation to beta but when 10 beta based sub portfolios are formed there is no significant relation observed.
• Maybe it is because other explanatory variables are correlated with β and this obscures the true relationship.
• Due to noise in beta calculation.
Jagadeesh & Titman (1993) Return to Buying Winner and Selling Losers
Research Question
• Is momentum strategy, which involves buying past winners selling the past losers a valid strategy?
• Can profitable trading strategies be constructed using momentum stocks??
Data & Methodology
• Relative strength trading strategy is analyzed based on price movement of last 3 to 12 month period.
• The data, which covers from 1965 to 1989 is from NYSE and AMEX.
Methodology Con’t
• If the stock prices over/underreact to info then profitable trading strategies based on past returns can be constructed.
• Accordingly, based on stock returns over the last 1, 2, 3, and 4 quarters portfolios are formed.
• These portfolios are held from 1 to 4 quarters in length, in total 16 different strategies examined.
• The same 16 strategies are conducted with a week lag between formation period and holding period.
Main Results of the Study
• All of the strategies generate positive return, • The stocks that generate significant abnormal
return start losing value around 12 months after the portfolio formation, and this trend continues up to 30 months, which indicates mean reverting behavior,
• The same behavior is observed around earning announcement.
Main Results of the Study
• The most profitable strategy is 12 months observation and 3 months holding, generates 1.31% monthly return. The same strategy w/ a week lag provides 1.49% per month.
• In each five year period from 1965 to 1989 just once the average return is not significant in 1975-79 due to heavy January effect.
• After the formation date first 12 month significant positive return which completely disappears after the 36th month.
• Beta (change in the riskiness of stock) cannot explain this phenomenon bc although beta changes- it went up during this period.
• Prior period 1941 to 1964 display similar pattern though not as significant.
• From 1980 to 1989 the strategy is tested around earning announcement, and on average winners generate 0,7% more than losers almost every month.
Average Size and Beta of the Portfolios
• Is it possible that winner Ps include high risk stocks systematically, or maybe size effect in place??
• It turns out that on average β of past losers is greater than β of past winners.
• Highest and lowest past return Ps are smaller than average Ps in market capitalization.
• Evidently, abnormal return is not due to risk or size!
Consider Serial Covariance of 6-month Return
• Is the source of abnormal return serial correlation between 6-month return?
• If yes we should observe positive correlation but in reality it is only -0,0028 which disproves the idea that serial correlation may be causing the abnormal return.
Profitability of Relative Strength Strategies Within Size- and Beta-based subsamples
• Stocks in 6 month/6month strategy are separated into 3 groups based on their beta and their size (Size: small-medium-big) and (beta: low-medium-high). This way the effect of size and beta will be observed if it exists.
• To further test the sub groups CAPM model is applied for portfolio return, winners minus losers, α comes out to be significant (t=3,84) for both winners and losers.
• It turns out that return on subsamples formed based on beta and size is similar to that of other strategies.
Seasonal Effect??
• It appears that only in the month of January momentum strategy losses its magnitude (almost 7% decreases in average return) but generates positive abnormal return in the rest of the year.
• Results indicate that every year in April maybe due to the fact that companies transfer money to pension funds the strategy consistently generates around 3% average monthly return.
Thank you!