Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003) 355–373
Arbitrage risk and the book-to-market anomaly$
Ashiq Alia,*, Lee-Seok Hwangb, Mark A. Trombleya
Eller College of Business, Public Administration, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA b College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea Received 24 August 2001; received in revised form 4 April 2002; accepted 21 March 2003
Abstract This paper shows that the book-to-market (B/M) effect is greater for stocks with higher idiosyncratic return volatility, higher transaction costs, and lower investor sophistication, consistent with the market-mispricing explanation for the anomaly. The B/M effect for high volatility stocks exceeds that for the low volatility stocks in 20 of the 22 sample years. Also, volatility exhibits signiﬁcant incremental power beyond transaction costs and investor sophistication measures in explaining cross-sectional variation in the B/M effect. These ﬁndings are consistent with the Shleifer and Vishny (1997) thesis that risk associated with the volatility of arbitrage returns deters arbitrage activity and is an important reason why the B/M effect exists. r 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. JEL classiﬁcation: G11; G14 Keywords: Arbitrage risk; Book-to-market; Mispricing; Transaction costs; Investor sophistication
1. Introduction Numerous studies show predictable returns over three to ﬁve years for portfolios long in high book-to-market (B/M) stocks and short in low B/M stocks The comments of Bill Horace, George Jiang, Chris Lamoureux, the workshop participants at Duke University, the University of Oregon, and an anonymous referee are gratefully acknowledged. The analyst estimates data used in this study were provided by I/B/E/S under its program to encourage research on earnings expectations. Professors Ali and Trombley acknowledge ﬁnancial support provided by the University of Arizona Eller College of Business and Public Administration Faculty Development Fund and by Ernst and Young. *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-520-621-3765. E-mail address: email@example.com (A. Ali). 0304-405X/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00116-8 $
A. Ali et al. / Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003) 355–373
(e.g., Rosenberg et al., 1984; Fama and French, 1992; Lakonishok et al., 1994). Two competing explanations for this exist. First, the return to B/M-based portfolio strategies represents compensation for risk, as suggested by Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1997). Second, the return to B/M-based portfolio strategies results from systematic mispricing of extreme B/M securities. Studies supporting the mispricing explanation show that market participants underestimate future earnings for high B/M stocks and overestimate future earnings for low B/M stocks (La Porta et al., 1997; Skinner and Sloan, 2002).1 If the B/M effect represents mispricing due to systematic bias in expectations, then why don’t professional arbitrageurs exploit this opportunity and quickly eliminate the mispricing? Shleifer and Vishny (1997) argue that arbitrage is costly and any systematic mispricing would not be quickly and completely traded away in situations where arbitrage costs exceed arbitrage beneﬁts. They further argue that risk due to the volatility of arbitrage returns (hereafter arbitrage risk) deters arbitrage activity and is likely to be an important reason why the B/M effect exists. Our study empirically examines their prediction and in doing so provides additional evidence to discriminate between the risk and mispricing explanations for the B/M effect. Arbitrage resources are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few specialized and poorly diversiﬁed traders. These arbitrageurs are risk averse and are concerned about the idiosyncratic risk of their portfolios. Thus, Shleifer and Vishny (1997) predict that volatility will deter arbitrage activities. If the B/M...
References: Admati, A.R., Pﬂeiderer, P., 1988. A theory of intraday patterns: volume and price variability. Review of Financial Studies 1, 3–40. Barber, B., Lehavy, R., McNichols, M., Trueman, B., 2001. Can investors proﬁt from the prophets? security analyst recommendations and stock returns. The Journal of Finance 56, 531–563. Bartov, E., Radhakrishnan, S., Krinsky, I., 2000. Investor sophistication and patterns in stock returns after earnings announcements. The Accounting Review 75, 43–64. Bhardwaj, R., Brooks, L., 1992. The january anomaly: effects of low share price, transaction costs and bid-asked bias. Journal of Finance 47, 552–576. Bhushan, R., 1992. Trading costs, liquidity and asset holdings. Review of Financial Studies 4, 343–360. Bhushan, R., 1994. An informational efﬁciency perspective on the post-earnings announcement drift. Journal of Accounting and Economics 18, 45–66. Blume, M.E., Goldstein, M.A.,1992. Displayed and effective spreads by market. Unpublished working paper. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Brennan, M., Jagadeesh, N., Swaminathan, B., 1993. Investment analysis and the adjustment of stock prices to common information. Review of Financial Studies 6, 799–824. Chan, L., Hamao, Y., Lakonishok, J., 1991. Fundamentals and stock returns in Japan. Journal of Finance 46, 1739–1789. Chan, L., Jagadeesh, N., Lakonishok, J., 1995. Evaluating the performance of value versus glamour stocks: the impact of selection bias. Journal of Financial Economics 38, 269–296. Chen, J., Hong, H., Stein, J., 2002. Breadth of ownership and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 66, 171–205. Copeland, T., Mayers, D., 1982. The value line enigma (1965-1978): a case study of performance evaluation issues. Journal of Financial Economics 10, 289–322. Dechow, P., Hutton, A., Meulbroek, L., Sloan, R., 2001. Short-sellers, fundamental analysis and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 61, 77–106. Dechow, P., Sloan, R., 1997. Returns to contrarian investment strategies: tests of na.ve expectation ı hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics 43, 3–27.
A. Ali et al. / Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003) 355–373
Dichev, I.D., 1998. Is the risk of bankruptcy a systematic risk? Journal of Finance 53, 1131–1147. Fama, E., 1970. Efﬁcient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance 25, 383–417. Fama, E., French, K., 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 46, 427–466. Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56. Fama, E., French, K., 1997. Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics 43, 153–193. Fama, E., MacBeth, J., 1973. Risk, return and equilibrium: empirical tests. Journal of Politcal Economy 81, 607–636. Foster, F.D., Viswanathan, S., 1990. A theory of the interday variations in volume, variance and trading costs in securities markets. Review of Financial Studies 3, 593–624. Hong, H., Lim, T., Stein, J., 2000. Bad news travels slowly: size, analyst coverage, and the proﬁtability of momentum strategies. Journal of Finance 55, 265–295. Ippolito, R., 1992. Consumer reaction to measures of poor quality: evidence from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Law and Economics 35, 45–70. Knez, P., Ready, M., 1996. Estimating the proﬁts from trading strategies. Review of Financial Studies 9, 1121–1163. Kothari, S.P., Shanken, J., Sloan, R., 1995. Another look at the cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance 50, 185–224. Kyle, A., 1985. Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica 53, 1315–1335. Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 1994. Contrarian investment, extrapolation and risk. Journal of Finance 49, 1541–1578. La Porta, R., Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 1997. Good news for value stocks. Journal of Finance 52, 859–873. Lee, C., Swaminathan, B., 2000. Price momentum and trading volume. Journal of Finance 55, 2017–2069. Lesmond, D., Ogden, J., Trzcinka, C., 1999. A new estimate of transaction costs. Review of Financial Studies 12, 1113–1141. Lesmond, D., Schill, M., Zhou, C., 2001. The illusory nature of momentum proﬁts. Unpublished working paper. University of Virginia. Lo, A.W., MacKinlay, A.C., 1988. Stock market prices do not follow random walks: evidence from a simple speciﬁcation test. Review of Financial Studies 1, 41–66. Newey, W., West, K., 1987. Hypothesis testing with efﬁcient method of moments estimation. International Economic Review 28, 777–787. Pontiff, J., 1996. Costly arbitrage: evidence from closed end funds. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, 1135–1152. Reinganum, M., 1983. The anomalous stock market behavior of small ﬁrms in january: some empirical tests for tax-loss selling effects. Journal of Financial Economics 12, 89–104. Rosenberg, B., Reid, K., Lanstein, R., 1984. Persuasive evidence of market inefﬁciency. Journal of Portfolio Management 11, 9–17. Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 1997. The limits of arbitrage. Journal of Finance 52, 35–55. Skinner, D., Sloan, R., 2002. Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock returns, or, don’t let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of Accounting Studies 7, 289–312. Stoll, H., Whaley, R., 1983. Transactions costs and the small ﬁrm effect. Journal of Financial Economics 12, 52–79. Warther, V., 1995. Aggregate mutual fund ﬂows and security returns. Journal of Financial Economics 39, 209–236. Wurgler, J., Zhuravskaya, E., 2003. Does arbitrage ﬂatten demand curves for stocks? Journal of Business 75, 583–608.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document