A New Empirical Approach to Explain the Stock Market Yield: A Combination of Dynamic Panel Estimation and Factor Analysis

This paper presents an empirical approach that combines competing paradigms of modeling in empirical capital market research. The approach simultaneously estimates the explanatory power of fundamentals, expectations, and historic yield patterns, making it possible to test the extent to which the efficient market hypothesis, fundamental data analysis, and behavioral finance contribute to explaining stock market yield. The core of the approach is a dynamic panel model (Arellano-Bond estimator with an MA restriction of the residuals), complemented with an upstream factor analysis to reduce multicollinearity. Due to the complexity of the data set, a great many parameters that influence the yield can be determined. Highly significant parameter estimates are possible even though the information in the data set is interdependent. For the German stock market (the 160 companies listed in DAX, MDAX, SDAX, and TecDAX), the quarterly yield is analyzed for the period between 2004 and 2009. The model has high explanatory power for the entire observation period, even in light of the fact that the period includes the financial crisis of 2008

O modelo de precificação de ativos de capital: teoria e evidências

Distante quatro décadas de seu aparecimento, o modelo de precificação de ativos de capital proposto pelo Nobel William Sharpe e por John Lintner, conhecido como CAPM, é ainda o modelo mais amplamente utilizado na estimativa do custo de capital de empresas e na avaliação de carteiras. O fato se deve às poderosas previsões permitidas pelo modelo sobre a medida do risco e a relação entre risco e retorno. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar que o CAPM apresenta algumas falhas empíricas associadas a simplifi cações teóricas e difi culdades de implementação de testes que sejam válidos para o modelo. A conclusão do artigo é que as limitações do CAPM representam desafi os a serem explicados por modelos alternativos

Explaining and Benchmarking Corporate Bond Returns

We evaluate how different betas and characteristics related to default, term, and liquidity risk fare against one another in explaining the cross-section of corporate bond returns. We find that characteristics-credit rating, duration, and Amihud illiquidity measure-fare better. Yields add incremental explanatory power. Consistent with yields providing a timelier assessment of default risk than ratings, bonds with higher yields but similar credit ratings, durations and Amihud measures experience more subsequent ratings downgrades, fewer upgrades, and a higher frequency of defaults. Based on our findings, we present characteristic portfolios that can be used to benchmark individual bond and portfolio returns

Default Risk and Equity Returns: A Comparison of the Bank-Based German and the U.S. Financial System

In this paper, we address the question whether the impact of default risk on equity returns depends on the financial system firms operate in. Using an implementation of Merton's option-pricing model for the value of equity to estimate firms' default risk, we construct a factor that measures the excess return of firms with low default risk over firms with high default risk. We then compare results from asset pricing tests for the German and the U.S. stock markets. Since Germany is the prime example of a bank-based financial system, where debt is supposedly a major instrument of corporate governance, we expect that a systematic default risk effect on equity returns should be more pronounced for German rather than U.S. firms. Our evidence suggests that a higher firm default risk systematically leads to lower returns in both capital markets. This contradicts some previous results for the U.S. by Vassalou/Xing (2004), but we show that their default risk factor looses its explanatory power if one includes a default risk factor measured as a factor mimicking portfolio. It further turns out that the composition of corporate debt affects equity returns in Germany. Firms' default risk sensitivities are attenuated the more a firm depends on bank debt financing