MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6991024809

Essays on Idiosyncratic Volatility and Asset Pricing

2010· dissertation· en· W6991024809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Volatility swapVolatility smileImplied volatilityVolatility risk premiumStock (firearms)Systematic riskPortfolioForward volatility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, I study three aspects of idiosyncratic volatility. First, I examine the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns. Next, I examine the share price effect and its interaction with the idiosyncratic volatility on stock returns. Finally, I examine the time series pattern of monthly aggregate monthly idiosyncratic volatility.\nIn the first chapter, I examine the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns. In their paper, Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang [AHXZ (2006)] show that idiosyncratic volatility is inversely related to future stock returns: low idiosyncratic volatility stocks earn higher returns than do high idiosyncratic volatility stocks. The main contribution of this paper is to provide evidence that it is the month to month changes in idiosyncratic volatility that produce AHXZ’s results. More specifically, a portfolio of stocks that move from Quintile 1 (low idiosyncratic volatility) to Quintile 5 (high idiosyncratic volatility) earns an average risk-adjusted return of 5.64% per month in the month of the change. Whereas, a portfolio of stocks that move from the highest to the lowest idiosyncratic volatility quintiles earns -0.94% per month in the month of the change. Eliminating all firm-month observations with idiosyncratic volatility quintile changes, I find the opposite results to AHXZ: it is persistently low idiosyncratic volatility stocks that earn lower returns than do persistently high idiosyncratic volatility stocks. I find that many of the extreme changes in idiosyncratic volatility are related to business events. In general, the pattern usually observed is that an announcement or an event increases uncertainty about a stock and hence, its idiosyncratic volatility increases. After the event, uncertainty is resolved and the stock returns to a lower idiosyncratic volatility quintile. \nIn the second chapter, I examine how the level of the share price interacts with idiosyncratic volatility to affect future stock returns. Ignoring transaction costs, a trading strategy that is long high-priced and short low-priced stocks earns positive abnormal returns with respect to the Fama-French (1992) three factor model. However, the observed positive abnormal returns are less significant if momentum is taken into account via the Carhart (1997) four factor model. Also the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns differs for price sorted portfolios: it is negative for low and mid-priced stocks but positive for high-priced ones. These results are robust for low and-mid-priced stocks even after momentum is included. However, the positive relation for high-priced stocks disappears due to relatively large loadings on momentum for high idiosyncratic volatility stocks. I also show that skewness and momentum are significant determinants of idiosyncratic volatility for low-priced stocks and high-priced stocks respectively. One implication is that the importance of idiosyncratic volatility for future stock returns may in part be due its role as a disguised risk factor: either for momentum for high-priced stocks and skewness for low and mid-priced stocks. \nIn the third chapter, I investigate the time series pattern of aggregate monthly idiosyncratic volatility. It has been shown that new riskier listings in the US stock markets are a reason for the increase in idiosyncratic volatility during the period 1963-2004. First, I show that this is more pronounced for Nasdaq new listings. Second, I show that for Nasdaq, prior to 1994 low-priced new listings became riskier, whereas during the internet bubble period it is the higher-priced listings that became riskier. Third, I show that institutional holdings have increased over time and have had a different impact on each new listing group: a negative for pre-1994 listings and a positive impact for post-1994 listings. Hence, I conclude that the observed time-series pattern of idiosyncratic volatility is a result of the changing nature of Nasdaq’s investor clientele.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.145
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→