IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qut/dpaper/092.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Value Premium in Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Michael E. Drew
  • Madhu Veeraraghavan

Abstract

Davis, Fama and French (2000) report that the value premium in United States’ stocks is robust. Herein, we present out-of-sample evidence for Malaysia, finding that value stocks outperform growth stocks and document an arbitrage opportunity. We observe that the mean monthly returns are substantially higher for the two mimic portfolios (SMB and HML) when compared with the market portfolio. For the period 1991 through 1999, an investor generated 1.92% (annually) holding the market portfolio in Malaysia, compared with the two mimic portfolios, SMB and HML with returns of 17.70% and 17.69% respectively. We also observe that the standard deviations for the two mimic portfolios are significantly lower than the standard deviation of the market portfolio. Moreover, the findings presented in this study reject the notion of survivorship bias advanced by Kothari, Shanken and Sloan (1995) and the data-snooping hypothesis attributed to Black (1993) and Mackinlay (1995) as an explanation for the value premium.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael E. Drew & Madhu Veeraraghavan, 2001. "On the Value Premium in Malaysia," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 092, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.
  • Handle: RePEc:qut:dpaper:092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://external-apps.qut.edu.au/business/documents/discussionPapers/2001/Mike%20Drew%20-%20No.%2092.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keim, Donald B & Stambaugh, Robert F, 1984. " A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 819-835, July.
    2. Jagannathan, Ravi & Wang, Zhenyu, 1996. " The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 3-53, March.
    3. Kandel, Shmuel & Stambaugh, Robert F, 1996. " On the Predictability of Stock Returns: An Asset-Allocation Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(2), pages 385-424, June.
    4. Rozeff, Michael S. & Kinney, William Jr., 1976. "Capital market seasonality: The case of stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 379-402, October.
    5. 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.
    6. John Y. Campbell, 2000. "Asset Pricing at the Millennium," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1515-1567, August.
    7. MacKinlay, A. Craig, 1995. "Multifactor models do not explain deviations from the CAPM," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 3-28, May.
    8. Pastor, Lubos & Stambaugh, Robert F., 2000. "Comparing asset pricing models: an investment perspective," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, pages 335-381.
    9. Knez, Peter J & Ready, Mark J, 1997. " On the Robustness of Size and Book-to-Market in Cross-Sectional Regressions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1355-1382, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Branch, Ben, 1977. "A Tax Loss Trading Rule," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(2), pages 198-207, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Reinganum, Marc R., 1983. "The anomalous stock market behavior of small firms in January : Empirical tests for tax-loss selling effects," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 89-104, June.
    15. Rogalski, Richard J, 1984. " A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 835-837, July.
    16. Keim, Donald B., 1983. "Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality : Further empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 13-32, June.
    17. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1995. " Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Earnings and Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(1), pages 131-155, March.
    18. De Bondt, Werner F M & Thaler, Richard H, 1987. " Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market Seasonalit y," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 42(3), pages 557-581, July.
    19. Kothari, S P & Shanken, Jay & Sloan, Richard G, 1995. " Another Look at the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(1), pages 185-224, March.
    20. Kato, Kiyoshi & Schallheim, James S., 1985. "Seasonal and Size Anomalies in the Japanese Stock Market," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(02), pages 243-260, June.
    21. Merton, Robert C, 1973. "An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 867-887, September.
    22. Jonathan B. Berk, 2000. "Sorting Out Sorts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 407-427, February.
    23. Dyl, Edward A, 1977. "Capital Gains Taxation and Year-End Stock Market Behavior," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 32(1), pages 165-175, March.
    24. 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.
    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. Kathleen Goffey & Andrew Worthington, 2002. "Motor Vehicle Usage Patterns in Australia: A Comparative Analysis of Driver, Vehicle & Purpose Characteristics for Household & Freight Travel," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 117, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asset pricing; multifactor models; value premium; arbitrage;

    JEL classification:

    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G15 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - International Financial Markets

    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:qut:dpaper:092. 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: (Angela Fletcher). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sequtau.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.