IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedgfe/2002-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The extreme bounds of the cross-section of expected stock returns

Author

Listed:
  • J. Benson Durham

Abstract

Several empirical studies report violations of the asset-pricing model of Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Black (1972). But, there is no consensus on specification in this literature, as such studies typically consider only a limited number of explanatory variables and do not satisfactorily control for previous findings. Extreme bound analysis (EBA), an imperfect but useful remedy for model uncertainty, suggests that comparatively few factors are robust. Given the cross-section of expected stock returns from July 1963 through December 2000, three of 23 variables - market size as well as short and medium run lagged return - pass the traditional EBA decision rule given all possible 3-, 4-, and 5-factor models of monthly stock returns. This paper also explores several potential improvements to EBA, including explicit consideration of possible multicollinearity, which largely does not affect the results, as well as sample divisions, which suggest that fewer variables are sturdy correlates of returns.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Benson Durham, 2002. "The extreme bounds of the cross-section of expected stock returns," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2002-34, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedgfe:2002-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200234/200234abs.html
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200234/200234pap.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    2. Durham, J. Benson, 2001. "Sensitivity analyses of anomalies in developed stock markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1503-1541, August.
    3. Chen, Nai-Fu & Roll, Richard & Ross, Stephen A, 1986. "Economic Forces and the Stock Market," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 383-403, July.
    4. Banz, Rolf W., 1981. "The relationship between return and market value of common stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-18, March.
    5. Cooley, Thomas F & LeRoy, Stephen F, 1981. "Identification and Estimation of Money Demand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 825-844, December.
    6. De Bondt, Werner F M & Thaler, Richard, 1985. "Does the Stock Market Overreact?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 793-805, July.
    7. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    8. Basu, S, 1977. "Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price-Earnings Ratios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 32(3), pages 663-682, June.
    9. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1996. "Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 55-84, March.
    10. Brown, Philip & Kleidon, Allan W. & Marsh, Terry A., 1983. "New evidence on the nature of size-related anomalies in stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 33-56, June.
    11. Black, Fischer, 1972. "Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(3), pages 444-455, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fredrik Olof Laurentius Nilsson, 2009. "Transaction costs and agri-environmental policy measures: are preferences influencing policy implementation?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(6), pages 757-775.

    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. Zura Kakushadze, 2014. "4-Factor Model for Overnight Returns," Papers 1410.5513, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2015.
    2. Fernando Rubio, 2005. "Estrategias Cuantitativas De Valor Y Retornos Por Accion De Largo," Finance 0503029, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Zura Kakushadze & Willie Yu, 2016. "Multifactor Risk Models and Heterotic CAPM," Papers 1602.04902, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    4. Amit Goyal, 2012. "Empirical cross-sectional asset pricing: a survey," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 26(1), pages 3-38, March.
    5. Zura Kakushadze & Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, 2015. "Custom v. Standardized Risk Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Fernando Rubio, 2005. "Eficiencia De Mercado, Administracion De Carteras De Fondos Y Behavioural Finance," Finance 0503028, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Jul 2005.
    7. Ericsson, Johan & Karlsson, Sune, 2003. "Choosing Factors in a Multifactor Asset Pricing Model: A Bayesian Approach," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 524, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 12 Feb 2004.
    8. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2013. "Understanding Asset Prices," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    9. Zura Kakushadze, 2014. "Russian-Doll Risk Models," Papers 1412.4342, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2017.
    10. Zura Kakushadze, 2015. "Heterotic Risk Models," Papers 1508.04883, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2016.
    11. Zura Kakushadze & Willie Yu, 2016. "Statistical Risk Models," Papers 1602.08070, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2017.
    12. Zura Kakushadze & Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, 2014. "Custom v. Standardized Risk Models," Papers 1409.2575, arXiv.org, revised May 2015.
    13. Gabriel Hawawini & Donald B. Keim, "undated". "The Cross Section of Common Stock Returns: A Review of the Evidence and Some New Findings," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 08-99, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    14. Rocciolo, Francesco & Gheno, Andrea & Brooks, Chris, 2022. "Explaining abnormal returns in stock markets: An alpha-neutral version of the CAPM," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. Durham, J. Benson, 2001. "Sensitivity analyses of anomalies in developed stock markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1503-1541, August.
    16. Pradosh Simlai, 2009. "Stock returns, size, and book‐to‐market equity," Studies in Economics and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(3), pages 198-212, July.
    17. Campbell R. Harvey & Yan Liu & Heqing Zhu, 2014. ". . . and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," NBER Working Papers 20592, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Şahin, Baki Cem & Danışoğlu, Seza, 2022. "Ambiguity and asset pricing: An empirical investigation for an emerging market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    19. M. Eskandar Shah & Sourafel Girm & R. Hudson, 2012. "Rationalizing the Value Premium under Economic Fundamentals in an Emerging Market," Working Papers 12010, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    20. Jiri NOVAK, 2014. "Does Stock Liquidity Explain the Premium for Stock Price Momentum?," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 64(1), pages 79-95, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stock - Prices; Stock market; Econometric models;
    All these keywords.

    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:fip:fedgfe:2002-34. 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: Ryan Wolfslayer ; Keisha Fournillier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbgvus.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.