Value Premium

Are the size effect and the value premium peculiar to 20th century markets, or are they enduring characteristics of equity market behavior? In the January 2009 preliminary version of their paper entitled “The Asset Pricing Anomalies in 19th Century Britain”, Qing Ye, Charles Hickson and John Turner measure the size and value anomalies using an original 19th century dataset. Using monthly stock prices and annual dividends for 1,051 stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange during March 1825 to December 1870, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Do returns associated with the four famous factors (market, size, book-to-market, momentum) vary systematically with the state of the market (such as bull or bear)? In their January 2009 paper entitled “The Effect of Market Regimes on Style Allocation”, Manuel Ammann and Michael Verhofen investigate how returns for the four factors differ between market states as determined by a multivariate two-state model of the overall equity market. Using U.S. stock market and factor data spanning 1927-2004, they conclude that: Keep Reading

How does the value premium fare when analysis appends data from the last few years to the data used in seminal studies? Does it persist, both in the U.S. and worldwide? In their October 2008 paper entitled “Value vs. Glamour: A Global Phenomenon”, the Brandes Institute refines and extends the duration of past value-growth research and expands its reach to global equity markets. The research focuses on price-to-book value ratio (P/B) as the principal value indicator, but also considers price-to-cash flow ratio (P/CF) and price-to-earnings ratio (P/E). Using stock returns and firm fundamentals for a broad sample of U.S. companies over the period April 1968-April 2008, and comparable data for 23 other country equity markets over the period June 1980-June 2008, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Does the value premium vary systematically with the state of the economy? More specifically, do value and growth stocks respond differently to negative macroeconomic shocks? In their September 2008 paper entitled “Value versus Growth: Time-Varying Expected Stock Returns”, Huseyin Gulen, Yuhang Xing and Lu Zhang investigate the relationship between economic conditions (recession or expansion) and the value premium. Using monthly returns for a broad sample of stocks over the period 1954-2007 (648 months), along with contemporaneous firm fundamentals and macroeconomic data, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Do equity investors systematically overpay for growth? In the September 2008 draft of their paper entitled “Clairvoyant Value and the Value Effect”, Robert Arnott, Feifei Li and Katrina Sherrerd compare the past prices of stocks with the discounted value of their actual subsequent cash flows (clairvoyant value) to measure the extent to which the market correctly anticipates firm growth. Using stock price and firm fundamentals data from the end of 1956 through the end of 2007 (51 years), they conclude that: Keep Reading

Do growth and value investing styles have momentum? If so, can investors/traders enhance momentum trading returns by accounting for the stylishness of stocks (the degree to which they fit into either a growth or value style)? In their August 2008 paper entitled “Style Investing, Co-movement and Return Predictability”, Sunil Wahal and Deniz Yavuz measure returns from the combination of stock momentum and stock stylishness. They consider momentum portfolio formation and holding intervals of three, six and 12 months, with an intervening skipped month. They define stock stylishness (but do not use that term) as the degree of stock price co-movement with either growth stocks or value stocks over the past three months. Using monthly returns, book-to-market ratios and market capitalizations for a broad set of stocks over the period 1965-2006, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Do stocks in Australia confirm pervasiveness of the value premium and the size effect? In their August 2008 paper entitled “Size and Book-to-market Factors in Australia”, Michael O’Brien, Tim Brailsford and Clive Gaunt measure the value premium and the size effect in the Australian market. Using company-specific accounting information from annual reports and contemporaneous stock prices for 98% of all Australian listed firms during 1982-2006 (25 years), they conclude that: Keep Reading

Are there exploitable differences in returns for stocks with heavy versus light institutional trading activity? In his March 2008 paper entitled “Trader Composition and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns”, Tao Shu analyzes the impact of institutional trading activity on the returns of individual stocks and on the strength of the momentum effect, post earnings-announcement drift (PEAD), the value premium and the investment effect. He calculates institutional trading activity at a quarterly frequency by dividing the aggregate absolute change in reported institutional holdings of a stock by the contemporaneous total quarterly trading volume for the stock. Using holdings data as reported via SEC Form 13F and associated stock trading volume and return data for the period 1980-2005, he concludes that: Keep Reading

Do investors price stocks based mostly on rational analysis or feelings? In their February 2008 paper entitled “Affect in a Behavioral Asset Pricing Model”, Meir Statman, Kenneth Fisher and Deniz Anginer use survey results to investigate both the objective and subjective (perceived) connections between risk and return. Using results of: (1) the 1982-2006 annual Fortune surveys of senior executives, directors and security analysts regarding the long-term investment value of companies; and (2) May and July 2007 surveys of high-net worth clients of a large investment firm, they conclude that: Keep Reading

Which stock return anomalies are trustworthy, and which are not? In the June 2007 draft of their paper entitled “Dissecting Anomalies”, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French apply both sorts and regressions to examine the robustness of the momentum, net stock issuance, accruals, profitability and asset growth anomalies. They note that sorts on an anomaly variable offer a simple picture of how average returns vary, but microcaps (a few big stocks) can dominate the performance of a sort-based equal-weighted (value-weighted) hedge portfolio. In addition, sorts are ill-suited to determinations of: (1) the exact relationship between an anomaly variable and returns, and (2) relationships among anomalies. They note also that extreme behavior by microcaps and outliers generally can distort inference from regressions. Using a robust set of firm data for a broad set of U.S. stocks allocated to three size groups (microcap, small and big) over the period 1963-2005, they conclude that: Keep Reading