본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Conditional Relationship between Disress Risk and Stock Returns

2

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Purpose: Previous research on the relationship between a firm’s distress risk and future stock returns produces inconsistent results. This study attempts to explain the conflicting results of earlier studies by showing that systematic distress risk leads to positive rewards, while unsystematic distress risk leads to low stock returns. In addition, this study intends to elucidate the factors of systematic distress risk and unsystematic distress risk, respectively. In this way, this study informs the rational investor what kind of distress risk they should take. Design/methodology/approach: This study considers two distress-predictor sets to show a possibility between distress risk and stock returns in both directions. The first set includes profitability ratio, excess returns, and volatility, and the second consists of leverage, firm size, and book-to-market ratio. Similar to the methodology proposed in Campbell et al. (2008), this study measures the distress risk using a dynamic logit model. Depending on which explanatory variables predict the distress risk, the relationship between distress risk and future stock returns could be in both ways. Findings: This study first shows that systematic and unsystematic distress risk factors are significant in predicting failures. However, the effects of the two distress risk factors on stock returns appear in opposite directions. Precisely, the systematic distress risk is estimated by the debt ratio, company size, and book-to-market ratio. The common factors of Fama and French (1993) explain the positive risk premium due to the systematic distress risk. In contrast, the unsystematic distress risk is predicted by profitability, momentum effect, and firm-specific volatility. The Fama-French common factors do not explain low stock returns due to unsystematic distress risk. Research limitations/implications: Because of the two different attributes of distress risk, investors must assume systematic distress risk and avoid unsystematic distress risk. Although the results of this study are based on the analysis of the Korean stock market, the main hypotheses can be tested in other countries’ stock markets as well. Originality/value: This study is the first to compromise the inconsistent results of existing studies, and it explicitly shows the factors of systematic and unsystematic distress risk.

Abstract

Purpose: Previous research on the relationship between a firm’s distress risk and future stock returns produces inconsistent results. This study attempts to explain the conflicting results of earlier studies by showing that systematic distress risk leads to positive rewards, while unsystematic distress risk leads to low stock returns. In addition, this study intends to elucidate the factors of systematic distress risk and unsystematic distress risk, respectively. In this way, this study informs the rational investor what kind of distress risk they should take. Design/methodology/approach: This study considers two distress-predictor sets to show a possibility between distress risk and stock returns in both directions. The first set includes profitability ratio, excess returns, and volatility, and the second consists of leverage, firm size, and book-to-market ratio. Similar to the methodology proposed in Campbell et al. (2008), this study measures the distress risk using a dynamic logit model. Depending on which explanatory variables predict the distress risk, the relationship between distress risk and future stock returns could be in both ways. Findings: This study first shows that systematic and unsystematic distress risk factors are significant in predicting failures. However, the effects of the two distress risk factors on stock returns appear in opposite directions. Precisely, the systematic distress risk is estimated by the debt ratio, company size, and book-to-market ratio. The common factors of Fama and French (1993) explain the positive risk premium due to the systematic distress risk. In contrast, the unsystematic distress risk is predicted by profitability, momentum effect, and firm-specific volatility. The Fama-French common factors do not explain low stock returns due to unsystematic distress risk. Research limitations/implications: Because of the two different attributes of distress risk, investors must assume systematic distress risk and avoid unsystematic distress risk. Although the results of this study are based on the analysis of the Korean stock market, the main hypotheses can be tested in other countries’ stock markets as well. Originality/value: This study is the first to compromise the inconsistent results of existing studies, and it explicitly shows the factors of systematic and unsystematic distress risk.

참고문헌 (17)

  1. Ang, A., "The cross-section of volatility and expected returns", The Journal of Finance, 61(1), pp.259~299 (2006)
  2. Ang, A., "High idiosyncratic volatility and low returns: International and further US evidence", Journal of Financial Economics, 91(1), pp.1~23 (2009)
  3. Aretz, K., "Do s tock returns really decrease with default risk? New international evidence", Management Science, 64(8), pp.3821~3842 (2018)
  4. Banz, R. W., "The relationship between return and market value of common stocks", Journal of Financial Economics, 9(1), pp.3~18 (1981)
  5. Bhandari, L. C., "Debt", equity ratio and expected common stock returns: Empirical evidence, 1988, pp.43(2), 507~528
  6. Campbell, J. Y., "In search of distress risk", The Journal of Finance, 63(6), pp.2899~2939 (2008)
  7. Fama, E. F., "The cross-section of expected stock returns", The Journal of Finance, 47(2), pp.427~465 (1992)
  8. Fama, E. F., "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds", Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), pp.3~56 (1993)
  9. Fama, E. F., "Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies", The Journal of Finance, 51(1), pp.55~84 (1996)
  10. Fama, E. F., "A five-factor asset pricing model", Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), pp.1~22 (2015)
  11. Fama, E. F., "Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests", Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), pp.607~636 (1973)
  12. Jegadeesh, N., "Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency", The Journal of Finance, 48(1), pp.65~91 (1993)
  13. Kim, J. M., "Failure Risk and the Cross-Section of Hedge Fund Returns", Financial Management, 45(4), pp.845~876 (2016)
  14. McFadden, D., "The measurement of urban travel demand", Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), pp.303~328 (1974)
  15. Newey, W. K., "A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix", Econometrica, 55(3), pp.703~708 (1987)
  16. Satterthwaite, F. E., "An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components", Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), pp.110~114 (1946)
  17. Shumway, T., "Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately:A simple hazard model", The Journal of Business, 74(1), pp.101~124 (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)