Using extreme value theory to value stock market returns

Extreme stock price movements are of great concern to both investors and the entire economy. For investors, a single negative return, or a combination of several smaller returns, can possible wipe out so much capital that the firm or portfolio becomes illiquid or insolvent. If enough investors experience this loss, it could shock the entire economy. An example of such a case is the stock market crash of 1987. Furthermore, there has been a lot of recent interest regarding the increasing volatility of stock prices. ^ This study presents an analysis of extreme stock price movements. The data utilized was the daily returns for the Standard and Poor's 500 index from January 3, 1978 to May 31, 2001. Research questions were analyzed using the statistical models provided by extreme value theory. One of the difficulties in examining stock price data is that there is no consensus regarding the correct shape of the distribution function generating the data. An advantage with extreme value theory is that no detailed knowledge of this distribution function is required to apply the asymptotic theory. We focus on the tail of the distribution. ^ Extreme value theory allows us to estimate a tail index, which we use to derive bounds on the returns for very low probabilities on an excess. Such information is useful in evaluating the volatility of stock prices. There are three possible limit laws for the maximum: Gumbel (thick-tailed), Fréchet (thin-tailed) or Weibull (no tail). Results indicated that extreme returns during the time period studied follow a Fréchet distribution. Thus, this study finds that extreme value analysis is a valuable tool for examining stock price movements and can be more efficient than the usual variance in measuring risk. ^

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.^

Estimation of global beta and tests of capital asset pricing models

With the rapid globalization and integration of world capital markets, more and more stocks are listed in multiple markets. With multi-listed stocks, the traditional measurement of systematic risk, the domestic beta, is not appropriate since it only contain information from one market. ^ Prakash et al. (1993) developed a technique, the global beta, to capture information from multiple markets wherein the stocks are listed. In this study, the global betas are obtained as well as domestic betas for 704 multi-listed stocks from 59 world equity markets. Welch tests show that domestic betas are not equal across markets, therefore, global beta is more appropriate in a global investment setting. ^ The traditional Capital Asset Pricing Models (CAPM) is also tested with regards to both domestic beta and global beta. The results generally support the positive relationship between stocks returns and global beta while tend to reject this relationship between stocks returns and domestic beta. Further tests of International CAPM with domestic beta and global beta strengthen the conclusion.^

Essays on international lending and increasing returns to scale

Standard economic theory suggests that capital should flow from rich countries to poor countries. However, capital has predominantly flowed to rich countries. The three essays in this dissertation attempt to explain this phenomenon. The first two essays suggest theoretical explanations for why capital has not flowed to the poor countries. The third essay empirically tests the theoretical explanations.^ The first essay examines the effects of increasing returns to scale on international lending and borrowing with moral hazard. Introducing increasing returns in a two-country general equilibrium model yields possible multiple equilibria and helps explain the possibility of capital flows from a poor to a rich country. I find that a borrowing country may need to borrow sufficient amounts internationally to reach a minimum investment threshold in order to invest domestically.^ The second essay examines how a poor country may invest in sectors with low productivity because of sovereign risk, and how collateral differences across sectors may exacerbate the problem. I model sovereign borrowing with a two-sector economy: one sector with increasing returns to scale (IRS) and one sector with diminishing returns to scale (DRS). Countries with incomes below a threshold will only invest in the DRS sector, and countries with incomes above a threshold will invest mostly in the IRS sector. The results help explain the existence of a bimodal world income distribution.^ The third essay empirically tests the explanations for why capital has not flowed from the rich to the poor countries, with a focus on institutions and initial capital. I find that institutional variables are a very important factor, but in contrast to other studies, I show that institutions do not account for the Lucas Paradox. Evidence of increasing returns still exists, even when controlling for institutions and other variables. In addition, I find that the determinants of capital flows may depend on whether a country is rich or poor.^