The Risk-Return Paradox for Strategic Management: Disentangling True and Spurious Effects
The concept of risk is central to strategy research and practice. Yet, the expected positive association between risk and return, familiar from financial markets, is elusive. Measuring risk as the variance of a series of accounting-based returns, Bowman obtained the puzzling result of a negative association between risk and mean return. This finding, known as the Bowman paradox, has spawned a remarkable number of publications, and various explanations have been suggested. The present paper contributes to this literature by showing that skewness of individual firms’ return distributions has a considerable spurious effect on the mean-variance relationship. I devise a method to disentangle true and spurious effects, illustrate it using simulations, and apply it to empirical data. It turns out that the size of the spurious effect is such that, on average, it explains the larger part of the observed negative relationship. My results might thus help to reconcile mean-variance approaches to risk-return analysis with other, ex-ante, approaches. In concluding, I show that the analysis of skewness is linked to all three streams of literature devoted to explaining the Bowman paradox.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.|
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Benjamin M. Oviatt & Alan D. Bauerschmidt, 1991. "Business Risk and Return: A Test of Simultaneous Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(11), pages 1405-1423, November.
- 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.
- David B. Jemison, 1987. "Risk and the Relationship Among Strategy, Organizational Processes, and Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(9), pages 1087-1101, September.
- 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.
- Deephouse, David L. & Wiseman, Robert M., 2000. "Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 463-482, August.
- Michael R. Walls & James S. Dyer, 1996. "Risk Propensity and Firm Performance: A Study of the Petroleum Exploration Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(7), pages 1004-1021, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:6538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.