IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v69y1993i1p142-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La perception du risque de titres financiers : l’importance relative et l’influence de certains facteurs de risque

Author

Listed:
  • Gendron, Michel

    (Département de finance et d’assurance, Université Laval)

  • Genest, Christian

    (Département de mathématiques et de statistique, Université Laval)

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the relative importance and influence of various socio-economic, institutional and systemic factors considered relevant to portfolio managers' risk perception of securities. The analysis is based on data from a 1990 survey in which twenty institutional investors from Québec were asked to assess the relative importance of seven factors generally regarded as representative of the multidimensional nature of risk and deemed adequate for determining the respondents' risk rankings of securities from the banking and consumer goods sectors. The individuals' preferences were elicited through paired comparisons expressed on a 1-9 scale and analyzed using a statistical variant, developed by De Jong (1984), of Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process. Despite the wide range of opinions observed as to the relative importance of the various risk factors, the risk rankings of the securities considered turned out to be very similar across factors. A possible explanation of this phenomenon is offered. Cet article présente une analyse de l’importance relative et de l’influence de différents facteurs socio-économiques, institutionnels et systémiques sur la perception du risque de titres financiers chez des gestionnaires de portefeuilles. Les résultats proviennent d’une enquête menée en juin 1990 auprès d’une vingtaine d’investisseurs institutionnels québécois auxquels on avait demandé de quantifier l’importance relative qu’ils accordent à sept facteurs généralement considérés comme représentatifs de l’ensemble des facettes du risque et adéquats pour la détermination du classement du risque de titres provenant de deux secteurs de l’économie, celui des banques et celui de la consommation. Les préférences des répondants, exprimées à partir de comparaisons par paires, ont été étudiées à l’aide d’une variante statistique, proposée par De Jong (1984), du procédé d’analyse hiérarchique de Saaty. Il ressort de cette enquête qu’en dépit d’une grande diversité d’opinions quant à l’importance relative à accorder aux différents facteurs de risque, le classement des titres d’un même secteur varie très peu d’un facteur à l’autre. Une explication de ce phénomène est suggérée.

Suggested Citation

  • Gendron, Michel & Genest, Christian, 1993. "La perception du risque de titres financiers : l’importance relative et l’influence de certains facteurs de risque," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 142-170, mars.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:69:y:1993:i:1:p:142-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/602100ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tinic, Seha M & West, Richard R, 1986. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: A Revisit," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(1), pages 126-147, February.
    2. Bower, Richard S & Bower, Dorothy H, 1969. "Risk and the Valuation of Common Stock," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 349-362, May/June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Czapkiewicz, Anna & Wójtowicz, Tomasz & Zaremba, Adam, 2023. "Idiosyncratic risk and cross-section of stock returns in emerging European markets," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, November.
    3. Dimosthenis Hevas & Aphroditi Papadaki, 2001. "The information content of investment tax credits," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 173-186.
    4. K. C. John Wei & Stanley R. Stansell, 1991. "Benchmark Error And The Small Firm Effect: A Revisit," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 14(4), pages 359-369, December.
    5. Andrew Ang & Robert J. Hodrick & Yuhang Xing & Xiaoyan Zhang, 2006. "The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 259-299, February.
    6. M. Reza Bradrania & Maurice Peat & Stephen Satchell, 2022. "Liquidity Costs, Idiosyncratic Volatility and Expected Stock Returns," Papers 2211.04695, arXiv.org.
    7. Amihud, Yakov, 2002. "Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 31-56, January.
    8. T G Saji & S Harikumar, 2015. "Earnings Growth and Value Premium: The Indian Experience," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(4), pages 444-454, December.
    9. Chang, Eric C. & Dong, Sen, 2006. "Idiosyncratic volatility, fundamentals, and institutional herding: Evidence from the Japanese stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 135-154, April.
    10. Kyung Shim & Harjoat Bhamra, 2015. "Stochastic Idiosyncratic Operating Risk and Real Options: Implications for Stock Returns," 2015 Meeting Papers 1494, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Elyasiani, Elyas & Mansur, Iqbal, 1998. "Sensitivity of the bank stock returns distribution to changes in the level and volatility of interest rate: A GARCH-M model," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 535-563, May.
    12. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    13. Kuiper, Ivo, 2017. "Essays on investing in stock and bond markets," Other publications TiSEM a22daf8a-de91-4f96-8068-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Panayides, Photis M. & Lambertides, Neophytos & Cullinane, Kevin, 2013. "Liquidity risk premium and asset pricing in US water transportation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 3-15.
    15. Chung, Kee H. & Wang, Junbo & Wu, Chunchi, 2019. "Volatility and the cross-section of corporate bond returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 397-417.
    16. Angelidis, Timotheos & Tessaromatis, Nikolaos, 2008. "Idiosyncratic volatility and equity returns: UK evidence," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 539-556, June.
    17. Jennifer Conrad & Michael Cooper & Gautam Kaul, 2003. "Value versus Glamour," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 1969-1996, October.
    18. Adam Zaremba, 2019. "The Cross Section of Country Equity Returns: A Review of Empirical Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Durand, Robert B. & Lan, Yihui & Ng, Andrew, 2011. "Conditional beta: Evidence from Asian emerging markets," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 130-153.
    20. Barardehi, Yashar H. & Bernhardt, Dan & Ruchti, Thomas G., 2019. "A test of speculative arbitrage: is the cross-section of volatility invariant?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1204, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:69:y:1993:i:1:p:142-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.