Liquidity and asset pricing: A comparison between three-factor and three-moment capital asset pricing models

Liquidity is an important attribute of an asset that investors would like to take into consideration when making investment decisions. However, the previous empirical evidence whether liquidity is a determinant of stock return is not unanimous. This dissertation provides a very comprehensive study about the role of liquidity in asset pricing using the Fama-French (1993) three-factor and Kraus and Litzenberger (1976) three-moment CAPM as models for risk adjustment. The relationship between liquidity and well-known determinants of stock returns such as size and book-to-market are also investigated. This study examines the liquidity and asset pricing issues for both intertemporal as well as cross-sectional data. ^ The results indicate an existence of a liquidity premium, i.e., less liquid stocks would demand higher rate of return than more liquid stocks. More specifically, a drop of 1 percent in liquidity is associated with a higher rate of return of about 2 to 3 basis points per month. Further investigation reveals that neither the Fama-French three-factor model nor the three-moment CAPM captures the liquidity premium. Finally, the results show that well-known determinants of stock return such as size and book-to-market do not serve as proxy for liquidity. ^ Overall, this dissertation shows that a liquidity premium exists in the stock market and that liquidity is a distinct effect, and is not influenced by the presence of non-market factors, market factors and other stock characteristics.^

Contemporary aspects of dividends: Before and during the financial crisis

The number of dividend paying firms has been on the decline since the popularity of stock repurchases in the 1980s, and the recent financial crisis has brought about a wave of dividend reductions and omissions. This dissertation examined the U.S. firms and American Depository Receipts that are listed on the U.S. equity exchanges according to their dividend paying history in the previous twelve quarters. While accounting for the state of the economy, the firm’s size, profitability, earned equity, and growth opportunities, it determines whether or not the firm will pay a dividend in the next quarter. It also examined the likelihood of a dividend change. Further, returns of firms were examined according to their dividend paying history and the state of the economy using the Fama-French three-factor model. Using forward, backward, and step-wise selection logistic regressions, the results show that firms with a history of regular and uninterrupted dividend payments are likely to continue to pay dividends, while firms that do not have a history of regular dividend payments are not likely to begin to pay dividends or continue to do so. The results of a set of generalized polytomous logistic regressions imply that dividend paying firms are more likely to reduce dividend payments during economic expansions, as opposed to recessions. Also the analysis of returns using the Fama-French three factor model reveals that dividend paying firms are earning significant abnormal positive returns. As a special case, a similar analysis of dividend payment and dividend change was applied to American Depository Receipts that trade on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX exchanges and are issued by the Bank of New York Mellon. Returns of American Depository Receipts were examined using the Fama-French two-factor model for international firms. The results of the generalized polytomous logistic regression analyses indicate that dividend paying status and economic conditions are also important for dividend level change of American Depository Receipts, and Fama-French two-factor regressions alone do not adequately explain returns for these securities.

A Critical Review of the Implied Cost of Equity: A New Way to Estimate the Expected Return

For the last three decades, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) has been a dominant model to calculate expected return. In early 1990% Fama and French (1992) developed the Fama and French Three Factor model by adding two additional factors to the CAPM. However even with these present models, it has been found that estimates of the expected return are not accurate (Elton, 1999; Fama &French, 1997). Botosan (1997) introduced a new approach to estimate the expected return. This approach employs an equity valuation model to calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) which is often called, 'implied cost of equity capital" as a proxy of the expected return. This approach has been gaining in popularity among researchers. A critical review of the literature will help inform hospitality researchers regarding the issue and encourage them to implement the new approach into their own studies.

Liquidity, governance and adverse selection in asset pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. ^ In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company's shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity - in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll's (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.^

Liquidity, Governance and Adverse Selection in Asset Pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company’s shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity – in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll’s (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.