Size, value and liquidity. Do They Really Matter on an Emerging Stock Market?☆
Introduction
There is substantial empirical evidence that stock returns can be better explained by a combination of risk factors rather than by a single-factor model. Starting in the late seventies and early eighties a number of factors contributing to the explanation of the cross-section of average returns have been detected. These include size (Banz, 1981, Fama and French, 1992, Keim, 1983, Reingaum, 1981), price–earnings ratio (Basu, 1977, Reingaum, 1981) and momentum effect (Brennan et al., 1998, Jagadeesh and Titman, 1993). The seminal studies by Fama and French, 1992, Fama and French, 1993, Fama and French, 1998 show that a combination of size and book-to-market effect is better able to capture the cross-section of stock returns than the market beta alone. The results of these studies have not remained uncontested, with a number of papers suggesting explanations behind the size and book-to-market factors and extensions to the original Fama–French three-factor model (Bauer et al., 2010, de Groot and Verschoor, 2002, Ferson and Harvey, 1999, Griffin, 2002, Hyde and Sherif, 2010, Liew and Vassalou, 2000, Llewellen, 1999, Malkiel and Jun, 2009, Shum and Tang, 2005). In particular, the seminal paper of Amihud and Mendelson (1986) paved the way to numerous studies suggesting that liquidity may be the relevant factor that explains stock returns after the three Fama–French factors have been accounted for. The rationale behind is that illiquidity can be measured as costs of immediate execution and an investor willing to transact at a favorable price faces a trade-off: he may either wait to transact at a favorable price or insist to execute a transaction immediately at a current bid or ask price (Amihud and Mendelson, 1986). Transaction costs therefore represent a cash outflow that reduces future returns. Additionally, Brennan and Subrahmanyam (1996)and Glosten and Milgrom (1985) note that a primary cause of illiquidity in financial markets is the adverse selection, which arises from the presence of informed traders. If a marginal investor is uninformed, he may demand higher rates of return when the adverse selection problem is more severe. Since then a number of studies examined the relevance of liquidity as a driver behind asst prices, producing conflicting results. For developed equity markets, the influence of liquidity on stock returns has predominantly been studied for the US market, and also for Japan and other mature international markets. The studies include among others, those by Acharya and Pedersen, 2005, Amihud, 2002, Chang et al., 2010, Garleanu, 2009, Keene and Peterson, 2007, Limkriangkrai et al., 2008, Liu, 2006, Marcelo and del Mar Miralles Quiros, 2006, Nguyen et al., 2007, Pastor and Stambaugh, 2003. A recent analysis by Lam and Tam (2011) shows that liquidity is indeed an important factor for asset pricing even after accounting for other well-established risk factors. The recent findings by Hearn (2011b) suggest a less clear effect of liquidity on asset pricing, depending on characteristics of the surveyed stock market. Studying the relationship between liquidity and asset pricing in an international setting Lee (2011) finds that liquidity is priced even after controlling for market, size and value factors. In addition, the study illustrates the link between market liquidity and liquidity of individual securities.
Dey (2005) shows that the notion of risk differs between emerging and developed markets, which has to be considered in asset pricing analyses.1 Bekaert et al. (2007) point out that liquidity risk is particularly important for the less sophisticated markets where the number of both securities and investors is scarce. The findings by Lee (2011) indicate that stocks listed in emerging markets are generally characterized by a high liquidity risk compared to developed markets. So far, however, the empirical studies analyzing the influence of the above mentioned risk-factors on stock returns have concentrated on the more developed markets. However, as investments in emerging markets play an increasing role in asset allocation, related asset pricing studies gain importance. So far related literature (among others Bekaert et al., 2007, Brown et al., 2008, Dey, 2005, Hearn, 2010a, Hearn, 2010b, Hearn, 2011a, Hearn and Piesse, 2009, Hearn and Piesse, 2010, Jun et al., 2003, Lee, 2011) either omitted Central and Eastern European emerging markets altogether or included only very limited sets of data.2 Central and Eastern European emerging stock markets are gaining importance, however, necessitating corresponding empirical research. Since investments in those markets are typically associated with substantial risk premia and consequently with high costs, the present findings are of interest for fund managers and investment professionals. Being the most advanced stock market in the region, the WSE is a clear leader in terms of development and financial integration in Eastern and Central Europe. Its market capitalization, trading volume, the number and variety of traded securities make the Polish market the leading stock exchange in the region, satisfying all necessary conditions for reasonable empirical research. The regulatory environment, which is compliant with EU standards, and the well-developed infrastructure make the WSE particularly attractive to foreign investors (Warsaw Stock Exchange, 2011). Due to the pioneering role of the Polish market in Eastern and Central Europe, our empirical results are of relevance for the other closely related emerging markets of this region. The present findings allow conclusions for those markets and might therefore be of interest for policy-makers and regulators in other Central and Eastern European countries. Additionally, the institutional characteristics of this market, such as presence of a large number of small firms as opposed to a large number of medium-size and large firms on developed markets provide an interesting backdrop for testing what has become an established model. The current analysis therefore provides important insights into this so far under-researched investment environment.
The present paper therefore contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, it provides evidence on pricing of market, size, value and liquidity factors in the largest and most developed of the CEE markets. Up to our knowledge, ours is the first paper to formally investigate which risk factor(s) help(s) to explain Polish stock returns. Secondly, when we study the importance of liquidity, we address the issue pointed out by Liu, 2006, Subrahmanyam, 2009 about the robustness of the results to different controls for risk. We therefore use a comparably wide range of liquidity measures to confirm our findings with regard to liquidity and capture the multiple dimensions of this factor. Such an approach may also help to identify which aspects of liquidity may have more prominence for asset pricing. We use a hand-collected and carefully compiled dataset on Polish equities. This allows us to ensure that the dataset is representative of the entire stock market and free from selection and survivorship biases. Methodologically, we rely on a pooled cross-sectional time-series estimation with Newey–West standard errors. We apply the single-factor CAPM model and the three-factor Fama and French (1993) model both with and without the liquidity factor. Our findings will therefore provide additional evidence on the extent and significance of the size and value premiums on international markets and also give an insight into the influence of the liquidity factor in an important emerging market.
Our findings indicate that market, size and value factors play an important role in explaining returns of the Polish stocks. However, despite the significance of these factors and the expected direction of their effect, they do not fully explain returns on the Polish stock market. Contrary to our expectations and to findings by earlier studies on other emerging markets, we do not find evidence that the liquidity factor helps to improve the explanatory power of the three-factor model. The latter result is robust across various measures of liquidity and different estimation time periods.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on the risk factors in emerging stock markets. Section 3 describes the data used and the construction of the portfolio returns, liquidity measures and factor portfolio returns. Section 4 presents the methodology used in the paper. Section 5 describes the empirical findings. Finally, Section 6 offers a summary of the estimation results and, based on them, conclusions.
Section snippets
Literature review
The importance of the most prominent risk-factors market, size and book-to-market for asset pricing has particularly been studied for developed markets.3 Besides, several papers have analyzed those factors for emerging markets. Their findings, however, are mixed. Fama and French (1998) investigate whether value
Data
After the breakdown of the communist era trading on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE) started in 1991 with five listed companies traded at one auction per week. The number of traded stocks continuously grew and in 1994 trading started to take place on a daily basis. Two years later a continuous trading platform was introduced, bearing a minimum trade size requirement. Only the most liquid stocks were gradually introduced into the continuous trading system, while they were still traded on the
Methodology
In order to investigate the role of the diverse factors on asset pricing on the Polish market we employ four alternative pricing models and pursue a stepwise approach. The estimations can be partitioned in two main sections. We start analyzing the effect of the Fama–French factors on asset pricing. We sort the data according to size and book-to-market values into six portfolios and estimate the standard-CAPM:
Thereafter we extend the model by the SMB and HML factors:
Empirical findings
We analyze the standard CAPM and the Fama–French three-factor model within a time-series context for each of the six combined size and book-to-market portfolios. The objective of this approach is to investigate the role of the different risk factors on asset pricing on the Polish stock market. Table 4 reports the estimation results across the six portfolios and the two alternative risk-specifications represented by the CAPM and the Fama–French models. The results for the standard CAPM indicate
Concluding remarks
The empirical evidence of previous literature suggests that a number of factors may help to explain the pattern of asset returns. This paper extends this evidence by studying the return patterns of the largest and the most developed stock market in the Central and Eastern Europe. Despite the size and significance of the Polish stock market in the region, up to our knowledge, there have been no studies into risk factors affecting its stock returns. The present paper investigates whether the
References (91)
- et al.
Asset pricing with liquidity risk
Journal of Financial Economics
(2005) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects
Journal of Financial Markets
(2002)- et al.
Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread
Journal of Financial Economics
(1986) - et al.
Market microstructure and securities values: evidence from the Tel Aviv stock exchange
Journal of Financial Economics
(1997) - et al.
Robustness of size and value effects in emerging equity markets, 1985–2000
Emerging Markets Review
(2002) - et al.
Market microstructure and asset pricing: on the compensation for illiquidity in stock returns
Journal of Financial Economics
(1996) - et al.
Alternative factor specifications, security characteristics, and the cross-section of expected stock returns
Journal of Financial Economics
(1998) - et al.
The return to value in Asian stock markets
Emerging Markets Review
(2008) - et al.
Introduction to ‘valuation in emerging markets’
Emerging Markets Review
(2002) - et al.
An empirical examination of the amortized spread
Journal of Financial Economics
(1998)
Liquidity and stock returns in Japan: new evidence
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal
Commonality in liquidity
Journal of Financial Economics
Trading activity and expected stock returns
Journal of Financial Economics
Order imbalance, liquidity, and market returns
Journal of Financial Economics
Book-to-market, firm size, and the turn-of-the-year effect: evidence from Pacific-Basin emerging markets
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal
Liquidity and stock returns: an alternative test
Journal of Financial Markets
Further evidence on Asian stock return behavior
Emerging Markets Review
Turnover and return in global stock markets
Emerging Markets Review
The seasonal behavior of the liquidity premium in asset pricing
Journal of Financial Economics
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
Journal of Financial Economics
Portfolio choice and pricing in illiquid markets
Journal of Economic Theory
Commonality in the determinants of expected stock returns
Journal of Financial Economics
Time varying size and liquidity effects in South Asian equity markets: a study of blue-chip industry stocks
International Review of Financial Analysis
Modelling size and liquidity in North African industrial sectors
Emerging Markets Review
Size and liquidity effects in Japanese regional stock markets
Journal of the Japanese and International Economies
Sector level cost of equity in African financial markets
Emerging Markets Review
Market liquidity and stock size premia in emerging financial markets: the implications for foreign investment
International Business Review
The capital asset pricing model and the liquidity effect: a theoretical approach
Journal of Financial Markets
Price dispersion in OTC markets: a new measure of liquidity
Journal of Banking and Finance
Liquidity and stock returns in emerging equity markets
Emerging Markets Review
The divergence of liquidity commonality in the cross-section of stocks
Journal of Financial Economics
Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality
Journal of Financial Economics
The relationship between size, book-to-market equity ratio, earnings–price ratio, and return for the Hong Kong stock market
Global Finance Journal
Liquidity and asset pricing: Evidence from the Hong Kong stock market
Journal of Banking and Finance
Stock returns and beta, firms size, E/P, CF/P, book-to-market, and sales growth: evidence from Singapore and Malaysia
Journal of Multinational Financial Management
The world price of liquidity risk
Journal of Financial Economics
Liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model
Journal of Financial Economics
Can book-to-market, size and momentum be risk factors that predict economic growth?
Journal of Financial Economics
A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model
Journal of Financial Economics
The “value” effect and the market for Chinese stocks
Emerging Markets Review
The role of an illiquidity risk factor in asset pricing: empirical evidence from the Spanish stock market
The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance
Asset pricing and systematic liquidity risk: an empirical investigation of the Spanish stock market
International Review of Economics and Finance
The risk and predictability of equity returns of the EU accession countries
Emerging Markets Review
Common risk factors in returns in Asian emerging stock markets
International Business Review
Stock selection strategies in emerging markets
Journal of Empirical Finance
Cited by (73)
A machine learning approach for comparing the largest firm effect
2023, Emerging Markets ReviewDo emerging stock markets offer an illiquidity premium for local or global investors?
2022, Quarterly Review of Economics and FinanceCitation Excerpt :Despite the evidence that supports the role of liquidity as a determinant of stock returns, the literature has also presented evidence otherwise, indicating liquidity is not a significant driver of returns in the emerging market context. For example, Lischewski and Voronkova (2012) do not find a liquidity effect in the Polish stock market, while French and Taborda (2018) find that positive returns are associated higher liquidity rather than illiquidity for Latin American stock markets. More recently, Sterenczak et al. (2020) find no evidence of an illiquidity related premium in frontier stock markets although one would expect illiquidity to be more severe in frontier stock markets compared to their emerging counterparts.
US risk premia under emerging markets constraints
2022, Journal of Empirical FinanceCredit risk – Return puzzle: Evidence from India
2020, Economic ModellingCitation Excerpt :Capital markets in most emerging economies are thin and underdeveloped (Rojas-Suarez, 2013). Moreover, high transaction costs, lack of marketability of assets, high volatility and low informational efficiency are widely observed to be the features of these markets (Cornelius, 1993; Kearney, 2012; Lischewski and Voronkova, 2012). Such markets, therefore, essentially provide alternative testing grounds for the credit risk – stock return relation.
Testing factor models in Indonesia
2020, Emerging Markets ReviewLiquidity adjusted capital asset pricing model in an emerging market: Liquidity risk in Borsa Istanbul
2019, Borsa Istanbul ReviewCitation Excerpt :Another research by Minovic & Zivkovic (2010) also presented the evidence of the significant effect of liquidity risk on asset returns in Serbian stock market. Lischewski & Voronkova (2012) investigated the significance of liquidity risk on asset returns in a multifactor pricing model in Polish stock market. They concluded that liquidity risk was less relevant than market, size book-to-market factors.
- ☆
Part of the paper was completed when Svitlana Voronkova was in the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. We are indebted to participants of the 6th Portuguese Finance Network conference, the “Xth Doctoral Meetings in International Trade and International Finance” organized by the network RIEF, the Conference “Heterogeneous Nations and Globalized Financial Markets: New Challenges for Central Banks”, the 2nd International Conference “Economies of Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence, Opportunities and Challenges”, and the research seminar of the Westfälische Wilhelms-University, especially to Martin Bohl, Crina Pingulescu, Christian Salm and Michael Schuppli for helpful comments and suggestions.