因子、特徵與資產定價異常

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：15

、訪客IP：18.117.186.92

姓名

柯冠成(Kuan-Cheng Ko) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系

論文名稱

因子、特徵與資產定價異常
(Essays on Firm Characteristics, Alternative Factors, and Asset-Pricing Anomalies)

相關論文

★ 避險基金之績效評估	★ 展望理論與共同基金績效
★ 生命週期基金 :行為財務學觀點	★ 行為特性與投資績效相關性之研究
★ 專業投資人行為特性探討	★ 中小型企業融資缺口與資訊不對稱之探討
★ 九型人格特質與理財偏誤行為之相關性研究	★ 銀行通路轉型策略個案研究
★ 銀行財富管理行銷策略分析-以兩家在台外商銀行為例	★ 羅盤玫瑰可預測型態之探討
★ 巢式與非巢式資產定價理論之比較與檢定	★ 投資者情緒與市場報酬
★ 資產定價模型樣本外績效之檢定	★ 規模效果和元月效應之微觀
★ 因子或特徵:全球觀點	★ 特徵與因子：日本證據

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

在第一篇文章裡，我們主要檢定二個解釋小公司及價值溢酬的因子模型。在CAPM的架構下，Ferguson and Shockley (2003)認為小公司(small size)及價值型股票(high bookto-market ratio)的溢酬是因為選用了股票市場的投資組合來當作市場投資組合的替代所造成的，真實的市場投資組合應包含市場上所有的股票及債權。Ferguson and Shockley (2003)提出兩個與公司的相對槓桿及相對危機相關的因子，發現這兩個因子能涵蓋Fama and French(1993)三因子模型的解釋能力。然而，Ferguson and Shockley (2003)的實證結果可能受到變數衡量誤差及投資組合形成的影響。本文採用Brennan et al. (1998)的方法來檢驗Fergusonand Shockley (2003)的因子是否能完全解釋市場上的異常現象，包含小公司及價值溢酬。Brennan et al. (1998)的方法是採用個別股票來分析，因此不受變數衡量誤差及投資組合形成問題的影響。我們的實證結果發現不論是Ferguson and Shockley (2003)的模型或是Fama and French (1993)的三因子模型，都無法完全解釋價值溢酬。我們進一步發現，由Ferguson and Shockley (2003)及Fama and French (1993)所構成的五因子模型，可以完全解釋價值溢酬。
第二篇文章將個別股票的流動性風險應用到資產定價的一些重要議題上。過去文獻發現流動性較差的股票具有較高的期望報酬，因此提出流動性溢酬的異常現象。本篇文章採用文獻上使用最為廣泛的三種流動性指標：Datar et al. (1998)用來衡量交易量面向的指標、Amihud(2002)用來衡量價格影響的指標以及Liu (2006)用來衡量交易速度的指標，對造成流動性溢酬的可能因素進行廣泛的探討，檢驗其背後的因素是來自理性的因子模型或偏向行為面的特徵模型；我們採用Daniel and Titman (1997)的方法，發現整體而言因子模型是較能解釋流動性溢酬的。

摘要(英)

This study contains two essays on factors, characteristics and asset-pricing anomalies.
Essay 1: Do Relative Leverage and Relative Distress Really Explain Size and Book-to-Market Anomalies?
In a CAPM framework, Ferguson and Shockley (2003) argue that size and value premiums are due to the improper use of an equity-only market portfolio. To complement the debt claims in the market portfolio, they propose two factors on relative leverage and relative distress, and show that the two factors subsume the explanatory power of Fama and French’s (1993) SMB and HML factors. However, based on an errors-in-variables free methodology proposed by Brennan, Chordia and Subrahmanyam (1998), we find that neither Ferguson and Shockley’s (2003) nor Fama and French’s (1993) models fully explain the book-to-market anomaly. As a further application, we find an augmented five-factor model which incorporates Fama and French’s (1993) factors into Ferguson and Shockley’s (2003) factors, is able to capture the book-to-market anomaly.
Essay 2: What Drives the Liquidity Premium: Factors or Characteristics?
In this paper, we investigate whether the nature of the liquidity premium is driven by the risk-based model or the characteristics-based model. We provide a comprehensive analysis by using three widely adopted liquidity measures, including the trading quantity dimension of Datar et al. (1998), the price impact dimension of Amihud (2002) and Liu’s (2006) measure which emphasizes on the trading speed dimension. By applying the methodology of Daniel and Titman (1997) and Davis et al. (2000), we show that overall the liquidity premium is better explained by the risk-based factor model.

關鍵字(中)

★ 結構性改變
★ 特徵模型
★ 因子模型
★ 流動性
★ 風險因子
★ 資產定價異常

關鍵字(英)

★ Risk factors
★ Liquidity
★ Factor model
★ Characteristics model
★ Structural break
★ Equilibrium anomalies
★ Asset pricing anomalies

論文目次

Abstract in Chinese 0
Abstract 0
Acknowledgements 1
Contents 3
List of Tables 5
1 Do Relative Leverage and Relative Distress Really Explain Size and
Book-to-Market Anomalies? 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Model and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Ferguson and Shockley’s (2003) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Relative covariation of stocks in factor loadings . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 BCS approach and testing hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Empirical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.1 Relative covariation of stocks in factor loadings . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.2 Main results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4.3 Robustness checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5 An augmented five-factor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2 What Drives the Liquidity Premium: Factors or Characteristics? 25
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Data and summary statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Liquidity versus size and BM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.1 Is liquidity independent of size and BM? . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.2 Fama-MacBeth regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4 The liquidity premium: factors versus characteristics . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.1 Evidence on the measure of Datar et al. (1998) . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.2 Evidence on Amihud’s (2002) measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.3 Evidence on Liu’s (2006) measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.4 Structural break test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
References 56

參考文獻

Altman, Edward I., 1968. Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance 23, 589-609.
Amihud, Yakov, 2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31-56.
Amihud, Yakov, Mendelson, Haim, 1986. Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics 17, 223-249.
Atkins, Allen B., Dyl, Edward A., 1997. Market structure and reported trading volume: NASDAQ vs the NYSE. Journal of Financial Research 20, 291-304.
Bai, Jushan, Perron, Pierre, 1998. Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66, 47-78.
Bai, Jushan, Perron, Pierre, 2001. Multiple structural change models: a simulation analysis. Working paper.
Baker, Malcolm, Stein, Jeremy C., 2004. Market liquidity as a sentiment indicator. Journal of Financial Markets 7, 271-299.
Banz, Rolf W., 1981. The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. Journal of Financial Economics 9, 3-18.
Black, Fischer, 1972. Capital market equilibrium with restricted borrowing. Journal of Business 45, 444-455.
Black, Fischer, Jensen, Michael C., Scholes, Myron S., 1972. The capital asset pricing model: some empirical tests. In: Jensen, M.C., Eds, Studics in the Theory of Capital Martlets, (New York: Praeger).
Blume, Marshall E., Friend, Irwin, 1973. A new look at the capital asset pricing model. Journal of Finance 28, 19-33.
Breeden, Douglas T., 1979. An intertemporal asset pricing model with stochastic consumption and investment opportunities. Journal of Financial Economics 7, 265-296.
Brennan, Michael J., Chordia, Tarun, Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1998. Alternative factor specifications, security characteristics, and the cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 49, 345-373.
Brennan, Michael J., Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1996. Market microstructure and asset pricing: on the compensation for illiquidity in stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 41, 341-364.
Chan, K.C., Chen, Nai-fu, 1991. Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms. Journal of Finance 46, 1467-1484.
Chou, Pin-Huang, Ko, Kuan-Cheng, 2008. Characteristics, covariances, and structural breaks. Economics Letters 100, 31-34.
Connor, Gregory, Korajczyk, Robert A., 1988. Risk and return in an equilibrium APT: application of a new test methodology. Journal of Financial Economics 21, 255-290.
Daniel, Kent, Titman, Sheridan, Wei, K. C. John, 2001. Explaining the crosssection of stock returns in Japan: factors or characteristics? Journal of Finance 56, 743-766.
Daniel, Kent, Titman, Sheridan, 1997. Evidence on the characteristics of cross sectional variation in stock returns. Journal of Finance 52, 1-33.
Datar, Vinay T., Naik, Narayan Y., Radcliffe, Robert, 1998. Liqudity and asset returns: an alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets 1, 203-220.
Davis, James L., Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 2000. Characteristics, covariances, and average returns: 1929 to 1997. Journal of Finance 55, 389-406.
Dimson, Elroy, 1979. Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading. Journal of Financial Economics 7, 197-226.
Fama, Eugene F., MacBeth, James, 1973. Risk and return: some empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 81, 607-636.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 1992. The cross section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47, 427-466.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3-56.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 1995. Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns. Journal of Finance 50, 131-155.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 1996. Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. Journal of Finance 51, 55-84.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 1998. Value versus growth: the international evidence. Journal of Finance 53, 1975-2000.
Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R., 2006. The Value Premium and the CAPM. Journal of Finance 61, 2163-2185.
Fama, Eugene F., MacBeth, James, 1973. Risk and return: some empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 81, 607-636.
Ferguson, Michael F., Shockley, Richard L., 2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549-2580.
Gervais, Simon, Kaniel, Ron, Mingelgrin, Dan H., 2001. The high-volume return premium. Journal of Finance 56, 877-919.
Haugen, Robert A., 1995. The new finance: the case against efficient markets (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.)
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, Titman, Sheridan, 1993. Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance 43, 65-91.
Jones, Charles M., 2002. A century of stock market liquidity and trading costs. Working Paper, Columbia University.
Knez, Peter J., Ready, Mark J., 1997. On the robustness of size and book-to-market in cross-sectional regressions. Journal of Finance 52, 1355-1382.
Lakonishok, Josef, Shleifer, Andrei, Vishny, Robert W., 1994. Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. Journal of Finance 49, 1541-1578.
Lintner, John, 1965. The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics 47, 13-37.
Liu, Weimin, 2006. A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 82, 631-671.
Lo, Andrew W., MacKinlay, A. Craig, 1990. Data-snooping biases in tests of financial asset pricing models. Review of Financial Studies 3, 431-468.
Merton, Robert C., 1973. An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41, 867-887.
Pastor, Lubos, Stambaugh, Robert F., 2003. Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. Journal of Political Economy 111, 642-685.
Petkova, Ralitsa, 2006. Do the Fama-French factors proxy for innovations in predictive variables? Journal of Finance 61, 581-612.
Roll, Richard, 1977. A critique of the asset pricing theory’s tests: on past and potential testability of theory. Journal of Financial Economics 4, 129-176.
Sharpe, William F., 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance 19, 425-442.
Zhou Guofu, 1999. Security factors as linear combinations of economic variables. Journal of Financial Markets 2, 403-432.

指導教授

周賓凰(Pin-Huang Chou)

審核日期

2008-6-5

推文