Review of Finance (2010) 14: 157–187 doi: 10.1093/rof/rfp018 Advance Access publication: 4 October 2009
The Limits of the Limits of Arbitrage
ALON BRAV1 , J.B. HEATON2 and SI LI3
Professor of Finance, Duke University Fuqua School of Business; 2 Partner, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP; 3 Assistant Professor of Finance, Wilfrid Laurier University School of Business and Economics Abstract. We test the limits of arbitrage argument for the survival of irrationality-induced financial anomalies by sorting securities on their individual residual variability as a proxy for idiosyncratic risk – a commonly asserted limit to arbitrage – and comparing the strength of anomalous returns in low versus high residual variability portfolios. We find no support for the limits of arbitrage argument to explain undervaluation anomalies (small value stocks, value stocks generally, recent winners, and positive earnings surprises) but strong support for the limits of arbitrage argument to explain overvaluation anomalies (small growth stocks, growth stocks generally, recent losers, and negative earnings surprises). Other tests also fail to support the limits of arbitrage argument for the survival of overvaluation anomalies and suggest that at least some of the factor premiums for size, book-to-market, and momentum are unrelated to irrationality protected by limits to arbitrage. JEL Classification: G11, G12, G14 1
Downloaded from http://rof.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on February 27, 2013
Empirical asset pricing tests of the predictions of the Sharpe-Lintner CAPM often result in model falsification. Small stocks earn returns that are higher than predicted (see Banz, 1981), as do recent winners (see, e.g., Chan et al., 1996), value stocks (see, e.g., Lakonishok et al., 1994), and stocks of companies with positive earnings surprises (see, e.g., Ball and Brown, 1968; Bernard and Thomas, 1990). Growth We thank Ray Ball, Nick Barberis, Zahi Ben-David, Peter Bossaerts (the editor), Michael Brandt, Markus Brunnermeier, George Constantinides, Campbell Harvey, Dong Hong, Ron Kaniel, Reuven Lehavy, Jon Lewellen, Mark Loewenstein (a discussant), Toby Moskowitz, Doron Nissim, Per Olsson, Matthew Rothman, Darren Roulstone, Ronnie Sadka, Richard Thaler, Mohan Venkatachalam, Mitch Warachka, two anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the Seventh Maryland Finance Symposium, the Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Economic Analysis, Duke University, Hebrew University, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzlyia, Israel, Northwestern University and Vanderbilt University for helpful comments. Please address correspondence to Brav at Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, North Carolina 27708–0120, email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Heaton acknowledges that the opinions expressed here are his own, and do not reflect the position of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP or its attorneys. Li acknowledges financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. C The Authors 2009. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the European Finance Association]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: email@example.com
A. BRAV ET AL.
stocks, recent losers, and negative earnings surprises earn returns that are lower than predicted (see, e.g., Ritter, 1991; Barberis and Huang, 2008; Ball and Brown, 1968; Bernard and Thomas, 1990; Chan et al., 1996). Researchers in behavioral finance argue that asset pricing anomalies result from the influence of unmodeled irrational behavior on security prices (see, for example, the extended discussion in Barberis and Thaler (2003) of the above anomalies). The behavioral claim is controversial. First, rational behavior is just one of several assumptions used to derive the tested asset pricing models. Model falsification might result from the failure of an assumption other than the...
References: Downloaded from http://rof.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on February 27, 2013
Amihud, Y. (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects, Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31–56. Asness, S. C. (1997) The interaction of value and momentum strategies, Financial Analysts Journal, March/April, 29–36. Ali, A., Hwang, L-S., and Trombley, M. A. (2003) Arbitrage risk and the book-to-market anomaly, Journal of Financial Economics 69, 355–373. Ang, A., Hodrick R., Xing Y., and Zhang X. (2006) The cross-section of volatility and expected returns, Journal of Finance 61, 259–299. Ball, R. and Brown, P. (1968) An empirical evaluation of accounting numbers, Journal of Accounting Research 6, 159–178. Banz, R. (1981) The relationship between return and market value of common stocks, Journal of Financial Economics 9, 3–18. Barberis, N. and Huang M. (2008) Stocks as lotteries: the implications of probability weighting for security prices, American Economic Review 98, 2066–2100. Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. W. (1998) A model of investor sentiment, Journal of Financial Economics 49, 307–343. Barberis, N. and Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance, in: G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, and R. M. Stulz (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier, First edition, Volume 1, Chapter 18, pp. 1053–1128. Bernard, V L. and Thomas, J. K. (1990) Evidence that stock prices do not fully reflect the im. plications of current earnings for future earnings, Journal of Accounting and Economics 13, 305– 340. Brav, A. and Heaton, J. B. (2002) Competing theories of financial anomalies, Review of Financial Studies 15, 575–606. Campbell, J. Y., Lettau, M., Malkiel, B. G., and Xu, Y. (2001) Have individual stocks become more volatile? An empirical exploration of idiosyncratic risk, Journal of Finance 56, 1–43. Chan, L. K. C., Jegadeesh, N., and Lakonishok, J. (1996) Momentum strategies, Journal of Finance 51, 1681–1713. Chordia, T., Goyal, A., Sadka, G., Sadka, R., and Shivakumar, L. (2006) Liquidity and the postearnings-announcement-drift, unpublished working paper, University of Washington. Cross, R. (1982) The Duhem-Quine thesis, Lakatos and the appraisal of theories in macroeconomics, The Economic Journal 92, 320–340. Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., and Subrahmanyam, A. (1998) Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions, Journal of Finance 53, 1839–1886. DeLong, J. B., Shleifer, A., Summers, L. H., and Waldmann, R. J. (1990) Noise trader risk in financial markets, Journal of Political Economy 98, 703–738. Fama, E. F. (1965) The behavior of stock market prices, Journal of Business 38, 34–105. Fama, E. F. (1991) Efficient capital markets: II, Journal of Finance 46, 1575–1617.
THE LIMITS OF THE LIMITS OF ARBITRAGE
Fama, E. F. and French, K. (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56. Fama, E. F. and French, K. (1995) Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns, Journal of Finance 50, 131–155. Friedman, M. (1953) The case for flexible exchange rates, in: Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Geczy, C., Musto D. K., and Reed, A. V (2002) Stocks are special too: an analysis of the equity . lending market, Journal of Financial Economics 66, 241–269. Grossman, S. J. and Stiglitz, J. E. (1980) On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets, American Economic Review 70, 393–408. Hoberg, G. and Prabhala, N. (2009) Disappearing dividends, catering, and risk, Review of Financial Studies 22, 79–116. Hong, H. and Stein, J. (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and overreaction in asset markets, Journal of Finance 54, 2143–2184. Kogan, L., Ross, S. A., Wang, J., and Westerfield, M. M. (2006) The price impact and survival of irrational traders, Journal of Finance 61, 195–229. Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1994) Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk, Journal of Finance 49, 1541–1578. Loughran, T. and Ritter, J. R. (2000) Uniformly least powerful tests of market efficiency, Journal of Financial Economics 55, 361–389. Lev, B. and Nissim, D. (2006) The persistence of the accruals anomaly, Contemporary Accounting Research 23, 1–34. Loewenstein, M. and Willard, G. A. (2006) The limits of investor behavior, Journal of Finance 61, 231–258. Mashruwala, C., Rajgopal, S., and Shevlin, T. (2006) Why is the accrual anomaly not arbitraged away? The role of idiosyncratic risk and transaction costs, Journal of Accounting and Economics 42, 3–33. Mendenhall, R. (2004) Arbitrage risk and post-earnings-announcement drift, Journal of Business 77, 875–894. Pontiff, J. (1996) Costly arbitrage: evidence from closed-end funds, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, 1135–1151. Pontiff, J. (2006) Costly arbitrage and the myth of idiosyncratic risk, Journal of Accounting and Economics 42, 35–52. Ritter, J. R. (1991) The long-run performance of initial public offerings, Journal of Finance 46, 3–27. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1997) The limits of arbitrage, Journal of Finance 52, 35–55. Shleifer, A. (2000) Inefficient Markets, Oxford University Press. Sloan, R. (1996) Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings?, The Accounting Review 71, 289–315. Wurgler, J., and Zhuravskaya, E. V (2002) Does arbitrage flatten demand curves for stocks?, Journal . of Business 75, 583–608. Zellner, A. and Siow, A. (1979) On posterior odds ratios for sharp null hypotheses and one-sided alternatives, H.G.B. Alexander Research Foundation, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. Zhang, X. F. (2006) Information uncertainty and stock returns, Journal of Finance 61, 105–136.
Downloaded from http://rof.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Leeds on February 27, 2013
Please join StudyMode to read the full document