IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/ohidic/2020-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disentangling Anomalies: Risk versus Mispricing

Author

Listed:
  • Birru, Justin

    (Ohio State U)

  • Mohrschladt, Hannes

    (U of Muenster)

  • Young, Trevor

    (London Business School)

Abstract

Systematic mispricing primarily affects speculative stocks and tends to take the form of overpricing, predicting lower average returns. Because speculative stocks are typically deemed risky by rational models, failing to control for exposure to systematic mispricing can bias tests of risk-return tradeoffs. Controlling for the effects of systematic mispricing, we recover robust positive risk-return relations for a large number of cross-sectional risk proxies, including many low-risk and distress anomalies. We also recover robust positive illiquidity-return relations. We provide a unifying framework to explain a number of puzzles arising from the empirical failure of standard asset-pricing models and show that risk-return relations supporting rational models can be recovered from the data by accounting for the existence of time-varying common mispricing.

Suggested Citation

  • Birru, Justin & Mohrschladt, Hannes & Young, Trevor, 2020. "Disentangling Anomalies: Risk versus Mispricing," Working Paper Series 2020-29, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2020-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3739944_code1542588.pdf?abstractid=3739944&mirid=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:ohidic:2020-29. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdohsus.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.