IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v50y2018i21p2339-2355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does reference point matter in the leverage–return relationship? Evidence from the US stock market

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Hu
  • Cynthia M. Gong

Abstract

The leverage–return relationship is supported by inconclusive empirical evidence in terms of its sign and significance. In this study, we argue that such a puzzling relationship can be understood by extending the traditional theoretical framework in a way that captures the reference dependence characteristics of prospect theory. We postulate that a firm’s leverage position relative to its reference point (i.e. target leverage) combined with market conditions places firms in either a gain or a loss domain, thereby resulting in different leverage–return relationships. Leverage and expected equity returns generally exhibit positive and negative relationships in gain and loss domains, respectively. Three hypotheses are derived and tested using 1998–2013 empirical data from the US stock market. This article contributes to the existing literature by confirming the applicability of prospect theory in explaining expected returns in the stock market.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Hu & Cynthia M. Gong, 2018. "Does reference point matter in the leverage–return relationship? Evidence from the US stock market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(21), pages 2339-2355, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:50:y:2018:i:21:p:2339-2355
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2017.1394978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2017.1394978
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036846.2017.1394978?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:applec:v:50:y:2018:i:21:p:2339-2355. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.