3 research outputs found
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
Determinants of Expected Stock Returns: Large Sample Evidence from the German Market
This paper conducts a comprehensive asset pricing study based on a unique dataset for the German stock market. For the period 1963 to 2006 we show that value characteristics and momentum explain the cross-section of stock returns. Corresponding factor portfolios have significant premiums across various double-sorted characteristic-based test assets. In a horse race of competing asset pricing models the Fama-French 3-factor model does a poor job in explaining average stock returns. The Carhart 4-factor model performs much better, but a 4-factor model containing an earnings-to-price factor instead of a size factor does even slightly better