Search results

In capital market, share prices of listed companies generally respond to accounting information. In 1995, Ohlson proposed a share valuation model based on two accounting indicators: company residual income and book value of net asset. In 2000, Zhang introduced the thought of option pricing and developed a new accounting valuation model. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the valuation deviation and the influence of some market transaction characteristics on pricing models.

The authors use listed companies from 1999 to 2013 as samples, and conduct comparative analysis with multiple regression.

The main findings are: first, the accounting valuation model is applicable to the capital market as a whole, and its pricing effect increases as years go by; second, in the environment of out capital market, the maturity of investors is one of important factors that causes the information content of residual income less than that of profit per share and lower pricing effect of valuation models; third, when the price earning (PE) of listed companies reaches certain level, the overall explanation capacity of accounting valuation models will become lower as PE gets higher; fourth, as for companies with higher turnover rate and more active transaction, the pricing effect of accounting valuation model is obviously lower; fifth, the pricing effect of accounting valuation models in a bull market is lower than in a bear market.

These findings establish connection between accounting valuation and market transaction characteristics providing an explorable orientation for the future development of accounting valuation theories and models.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate changes in the commercial real estate market dynamics as a function of and conditional to the shifts in market state-space environment that can influence agent responses.

The analytical design uses a comparative computational experiment to address the performance of property assets in the current market based on comparison with prior structural patterns. The latent variables developed across market sectors are used to test agent behavior contingent on the perspectives of capital asset pricing conditionals (CAPM) and a behavioral momentum/herd construct. The state-space momentum analysis can assist the comparative analysis of current levels and shifts in property asset performance given the issues that have arisen with the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

An analytic approach is employed framed by a situation-dependent model. This frame considers risk profiles characterizing the perspectives and preferences guiding a delineated market state. This perspective is concerned with the possibility of shifts in market momentum and representativeness conditioning investor expectations. It is observed that the current market (post-crisis) has changed significantly from the prior operations (despite the diversity observed in prior market states). The dynamics of initial findings required an additional test anchored to the performance of the general capital market and the real economy across time. This context supports the use of a modified CAPM model allowing the consideration of opportunity cost in a space-time dynamic anchored with the consideration of equity, debt, riskless asset and liquidity options as they varied for the representative agents operating per market state.

This paper integrates neoclassical and behavioral economic constructs. Combines asset pricing with prospect theory and allows the calculation of endogenous time-preferences, risk attitudes and formulation and testing of hyperbolic discounting functions.

The research shows that market structure and agent behavior since the financial crisis has changed from the investment and valuation perspectives operating as observed and measured from 1970 up to 2007. In contradiction to the long-term findings of Reinhart and Rogoff (2008), but in compliance with common perspectives and decision heuristics often employed by investors, this time things have changed! Discounting and expected rates of return are dynamic and are hyperbolic and not constant. Returns and investment for property assets are situational (market state-space specific) and offer a distinct asset class, not appropriately estimated by many of the traditional financial models.

Assist in supporting insights to measure in errors and equations that result in inefficient resource allocation and beta discounting that supports the financial crisis created by assets subject to long-term decision needs (delta function).

The paper offers a combination and comparison of neoclassic asset pricing using a modified CAPM (two-pass) approach within the structural frame of Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory. This technique allows the consideration of the effects of present bias, beta-delta functions and the operation of the Allais Paradox in market states that are characterized by gains and losses and thus risk aversion and risk seeking behavior. This ability for differentiation allows for the development of endogenous time-preferences and hyperbolic discounting factors characteristic of commercial property investment.

The purpose of this paper is to test a discrete time asset pricing model where a non‐marketable asset (human capital), along with other factors predicting stock returns, explain risk return relationship. The paper will add to the literature on risk return relationship with human capital by investigating the hypothesis that human capital is a significant factor affecting stock prices.

The dynamic inter‐linkages of factors representing financial and human components of wealth in predicting stock returns is tested in the Indian market for the period of 1996:04 to 2005:06. The procedures employed include Granger causality tests, impulse response functions and seemingly unrelated regression estimates.

Empirical findings validate the model that including human capital as a proxy for aggregate wealth in the economy can better predict stock prices than the standard empirical capital asset pricing model. There is a Granger cause relationship between security prices and labor income and it is further concluded that labor and dividend are significant factors affecting security prices.

This is one of the first papers to study the human capital aspect in predicting stock returns in the Indian market. In addition, the paper provides important insights into the causal relationship of human capital and market return in explaining the risk return relationship.

Daniel and Titman (1997) contend that the Fama‐French three‐factor model’s ability to explain cross‐sectional variation in expected returns is a result of characteristics that firms have in common rather than any risk‐based explanation. The primary aim of the current paper is to provide out‐of‐sample tests of the characteristics versus risk factor argument. The main focus of our tests is to examine the intercept terms in Fama‐French regressions, wherein test portfolios are formed by a three‐way sorting procedure on book‐to‐market, size and factor loadings. Our main test focuses on ‘characteristic‐balanced’ portfolio returns of high minus low factor loading portfolios, for different size and book‐to‐market groups. The Fama‐French model predicts that these regression intercepts should be zero while the characteristics model predicts that they should be negative. Generally, despite the short sample period employed, our findings support a risk‐factor interpretation as opposed to a characteristics interpretation. This is particularly so for the HML loading‐based test portfolios. More specifically, we find that: the majority of test portfolios tend to reveal higher returns for higher loadings (while controlling for book‐to‐market and size characteristics); the majority of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are statistically insignificant; for the characteristic‐balanced portfolios, very few of the Fama‐French regression intercepts are significant.

The purpose of the study is to examine the dynamics in the troika of asset pricing, volatility, and the business cycle in the US and Japan.

The study uses a six-factor asset pricing model to derive the realized volatility measure for the GARCH-type models.

The comprehensive empirical investigation led to the following conclusion. First, the results infer that the market portfolio and human capital are the primary discounting factors in asset return predictability during various phases of the subprime crisis phenomenon for the US and Japan. Second, the empirical estimates neither show any significant impact of past conditional volatility on the current conditional volatility nor any significant effect of subprime crisis episodes on the current conditional volatility in the US and Japan. Third, there is no asymmetric volatility effect during the subprime crisis phenomenon in the US and Japan except the asymmetric volatility effect during the post-subprime crisis period in the US and full period in Japan. Fourth, the volatility persistence is relatively higher during the subprime crisis period in the US, whereas during the subprime crisis transition period in Japan than the rest of the phases of the subprime crisis phenomenon.

The study argues that the empirical investigations that employed the autoregressive method to derive the realized volatility measure for the parameter estimation of GARCH-type models may result in incurring spurious estimates. Further, the empirical results of the study show that using the six-factor asset pricing model in an intertemporal framework to derive the realized volatility measure yields better estimation results while estimating the parameters of GARCH-type models.

The nature and extent of our knowledge of stock market efficiency are examined. The development of “efficiency”, as a way of thinking about stock markets, is traced from Roberts (1959) and Fama (1965) onward. The early work successfully introduced competitive economic theory to the study of stock markets and paved the way for a flood of empirical research on the relation between information and stock prices. This literature irreversibly altered our views on stock market behavior. The theory and evidence of seemingly‐rational use of information lay in sharp contrast to prior beliefs. It was associated with a widespread increase in respect for stock markets, financial markets, and markets in general, at the time. Researchers began developing and using a variety of formal models of security prices. Nevertheless, “efficiency” has its limitations, both theoretically (as a way of characterizing markets) and empirically (by stretching the quality of the data, the estimation techniques used, and our knowledge of price behavior in competitive markets). Extensive evidence of anomalies suggests either that the market systematically misprices securities or that the theoretical or empirical limitations are binding, or both. The less interesting research question now is whether markets are efficient, and the more interesting question is how we can learn more about price and transactions behavior in competitive stock markets. The concept of an “efficient stock market” has stimulated both insight and controversy since Fama (1965) introduced it to the financial economics literature. As a construct, “efficiency” models the stock market in terms of the reaction of prices to the flow of information. Like all theory choices, modelling the market in this fashion involved tradeoffs. The benefits included opening the literature to an abundance of high‐quality researchable data, covering a variety of information, and the resulting insights obtained on the role of information in setting prices. The opportunity costs included temporarily closing the literature to alternative ways of viewing stock markets, for example by modelling public information as a homogenous good and thus ignoring factors such as differences in beliefs among investors, differences in information processing costs, and the “animal spirits” that might drive group behavior. The costs also included reliance on particular asset‐pricing models of how an “efficient” market would set prices. Not surprisingly, the ensuing deluge of research has produced some startling evidence, for and against the proposition that financial markets are “efficient”. Strongly‐conflicting views and puzzling anomalies remain. The early evidence seemed unexpectedly consistent with the theory. The theory, and its implications, also seemed clear at the time. After a period that seems short in retrospect, the growing body of evidence in favor of the efficient market hypothesis emerged as one of the most influential empirical areas of economics. Fama's (1970) review described a flourishing, coherent and confident literature. This research had an irreversible effect on our knowledge of and attitude toward stock markets, and financial markets generally. It coincided with an emergence of interest in, and respect for, all markets among economists and politicians, and influenced the worldwide trend toward “liberalizing” financial and other markets. The research consistently appeared to show an unbiased reaction of stock prices to public information. The property of “unbiased reaction” to public information, which formed the basis of the early definitions of “efficiency”, was seen to be an implication of rational, maximizing investor behavior in competitive securities markets (Fama 1965, p.4). Reduced to a basic level, the reasoning was that any systematicallybiased reaction to public information is costlessly publicly observable, and thus provides pure profit opportunities to be competed away. Characterizing the market in terms of its reaction to information is only one of many feasible ways of modelling stock price behavior, but it introduced economic theoryto the empirical studyof stock prices, which had received little serious attention from economists prior to that point. Despite the subsequent spate of anomalies, the early efficiency literature not only adapted standard economic theoryto provide the first formal economic insights into how stock prices behave, but it helped pave the way for an outporing of theoretical and empirical work on stock markets and capital markets in general. Subsequent empirical research was not as consistent with the theory. Evidence of “anomalous” return behavior now is widespread and well‐known. It generallytakes the form of variables (for example, size, day‐of‐the‐week, P/E ratio, market/book value ratio, rank of scaled earnings change, dividend yield) that are significantly but inexplicablyrelated to subsequent abnormal stock returns. Much of this evidence has defied rational economic explanation to date and appears to have caused many researchers to strongly qualify their views on market efficiency. Disagreement has not been not confined to the evidence. The literature has produced a variety of research designs, ranging from the “market model” of Fama, Fisher, Jensen and Roll (FFJR, 1969) to Shiller's (1981a,b) variance‐bounds tests. The very term “efficiency” has engendered controversy: there is a modest literature on precisely what efficiency means, on the role of transaction costs, and on whether efficient markets are logically feasible. Making sense of this literature requires careful definition of “efficiency” in this context and careful analysis of the type of evidence that has been offered in relation to it. This involves an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both the theory of efficient markets, as a way of characterizing stock markets, and of the data and research designs used in testing it. Not surprisingly, a mixed conclusion emerges. While the concept of efficient markets was an audacious departure from the comparative ignorance and suspicion among economists of stock markets that preceded it, and provides valuable insights into their behavior, the concept has its limitations, in terms of both its internal logical coherence and its fit with the data. Section 1 ofthis survey sketches the development of the efficient market theory, reviewing the principal contributions in terms of their usefulness in guiding and evaluating empirical research. Section 2 addresses the limitations inherent in what is knowable about stock market efficiency, given the present state of theory about how security prices might behave in an “efficient” market. It argues that there are binding limitations in the theoryof asset pricing, some of which are known and others of which are unknown or even unknowable. These limitations must be borne in mind when choosing whether to interpret the data as evidence of: (1) market efficiency, under the maintained hypothesis that a specific research design, including a specific model of asset pricing used to benchmark price behavior, correctly describes pricing in an efficient market; or (2) the ability of our models and research designs to encapsulate how prices behave in an efficient market, under the maintained hypothesis of efficiency. Against this background, section 3 then provides an assessment of the accomplishments of the theory of stock market efficiency, including an interpretation of the evidence. It focuses on the nature and influence of the evidence and does not attempt to provide a comprehensive literature taxonomy. The final section offers conclusions. The principal conclusion is that the theory of efficient markets has irreversibly enhanced our knowledge of and respect for stock markets (and perhaps for all financial market or even for markets in general) but that, like all theories, it is fundamentally flawed.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on one of the major emerging Asian economies – India – to examine the role of human capital in asset prices.

The analysis uses various statistical techniques (e.g. multifactor regression model, 3D graphs, GRS test and residual graphs) to test the role of human capital in asset prices.

A six-factor model designed for capturing the size, value, profitability, investment and human capital patterns in average portfolio returns performs better than both Fama–French’s (1993) three- and Fama–French’s (2015) five-factor model. The main problem of six-factor model is its failure in capturing the average returns on “microcap with low-value stocks that are highly profitable invests aggressively for asset growth but invests much lesser for human growth” and “microcap with unprofitable stocks whose returns behave like those of low-value firms with conservative investment”. The study finds the investment factor (CMA) of Fama–French’s (2015) five-factor model as the redundant factor for describing the portfolio average returns in the study sample.

The paper argues that human capital also plays a role in predicting returns. This has significant public policy content.

The present study is novel for several reasons: first, it includes six-factor model descriptions; second, no comprehensive asset pricing study is done with human capital in Asian emerging markets, especially in India. Perhaps, this is the first study to examine whether portfolio returns are affected by the human capital in the Indian context. Third, the study period and methodology used are completely different from the previous studies.

The aim of this study is to investigate the role of efficiency in capital asset pricing. The paper explores the impact of a four-factor model that involves an efficiency factor on the returns of Nasdaq technology firms.

The paper relies on data of 147 firms from July 2007 to June 2017 to examine the impact of efficiency on stock returns. The performances of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), Fama–French three-factor model and the proposed four-factor model are evaluated based on the time series regression method. The parameters such as the GRS F-statistic and adjusted R² are used to compare the relative performances of all models.

The results show that all factors of the models are found to be valid in asset pricing. Also, the paper provides evidence that the explanatory power of the proposed four-factor model outperforms the explanatory power of the CAPM and Fama–French three-factor model.

Unlike most asset pricing studies, this paper presents a new asset pricing model by adding the efficiency factor to the Fama–French three-factor model. It is documented that the efficiency factor increases the predictive ability of stock returns. Evidence implies that investors consider efficiency as one of the main factors in pricing their assets.

The purpose of this paper is to find applicable Islamic pricing benchmarks (IPBs) instead of the market interest rates which are currently used in Islamic finance as benchmark.

The suggested model (Islamic pricing benchmark model (IPBM)) obviously reveals the feasibility and practical effectiveness of a substitute to London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and as an evaluator tool to suggested investment projects. The model is a suggested mechanism which could be used as an alternative choice to the conventional borrowing based on the forbidden Riba or on interest. The suggested IPBM depends on estimating the rate of return for any project on consideration of the cash flows in future which is expected to be relative to the invested capital.

The IPBM approach might be applied to financial tools, where the fund owner bears the loss since it is not because of negligence. An instrument to help identify the investment for target rates of return (as an alternative choice to LIBOR) to identify a breakeven point based on expected cash flows for the project to be financed instead of based on seeking the indicators of interest or Riba (as LIBOR). This feature of the IPBM model as an Islamic benchmark renders it as a Shariah pricing mechanism for the Islamic financial products.

The IPBM could be used as a financial instrument to assist in identifying the investment for the target return rates to determine a breakeven point based on expected cash flows for the project to be funded instead of being based on seeking the interest indicators or Riba (as LIBOR). This feature as an Islamic benchmark is considered as a Shariah pricing mechanism for the Islamic financial products. In particular, the proposed model incorporates the Shariah parameters. In that, it is hoped that the Islamic financial instruments will be more comprehensive in their Shariah compliance and thereby may bring more credibility to the Islamic financial system in general.

This paper highlights several important issues related to the IPBMs in Islamic financial institutions which are not widely discussed among researchers. This study contributes to finding an alternative IPB for the Islamic financial products which is currently using the conventional interest rate (LIBOR) as its benchmark. The current study provides empirical evidence for the possibility of relying on the IPBM as an Islamic benchmark to price Islamic financial transactions.