Is The Risk-Return Paradox Still Alive?
AbstractTo date, the validity of empirical Bowman’s paradox papers that employ mean-variance approach for testing the risk/return relationship are inherently unverifiable and their results cannot be generalized. However, this problem can be overcome by developing an econometric model with two fundamental characteristics. The first one is the use of a time series model for each firm, avoiding the traditional cross-sectional analysis. The other one is to estimate a model with a single variable (the firm rate of return), but whose expectation and variance are mathematically related according to behavioral theories hypotheses, forming a heterocedastic model similar to “GARCH”. Our results agree with behavioral theories and show that these theories can also be carry out with market measures.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía de la Empresa in its series Business Economics Working Papers with number wb024818.
Date of creation: Oct 2002
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2003-03-10 (All new papers)
- NEP-FIN-2003-03-10 (Finance)
- NEP-FMK-2003-03-10 (Financial Markets)
- NEP-RMG-2003-03-10 (Risk Management)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Josef Lakonishok & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1993.
"Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
84, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Thomas H. Naylor & Francis Tapon, 1982. "The Capital Asset Pricing Model: An Evaluation of its Potential as a Strategic Planning Tool," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(10), pages 1166-1173, October.
- March, James G., 1988. "Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-24, January.
- Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. " The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-65, June.
- Johannes M. Lehner, 2000. "Shifts of Reference Points for Framing of Strategic Decisions and Changing Risk-Return Associations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 63-76, January.
- John M. Abowd, 1990. "Does performance-based managerial compensation affect corporate performance?," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(3), pages 52-73, February.
- Sinha, Tapen, 1994. "Prospect theory and the risk return association: Another look," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 225-231, July.
- Fiegenbaum, Avi, 1990. "Prospect theory and the risk-return association : An empirical examination in 85 industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 187-203, October.
- Timothy W. Ruefli, 1990. "Mean-Variance Approaches to Risk-Return Relationships in Strategy: Paradox Lost," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 368-380, March.
- Gooding, Richard Z. & Goel, Sanjay & Wiseman, Robert M., 1996. "Fixed versus variable reference points in the risk-return relationship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 331-350, March.
- Timothy W. Ruefli, 1991. "Reply to Bromiley's Comment and Further Results: Paradox Lost Becomes Dilemma Found," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(9), pages 1210-1215, September.
- Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. " Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
- E.K. Berndt & B.H. Hall & R.E. Hall, 1974. "Estimation and Inference in Nonlinear Structural Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 3, number 4, pages 103-116 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.