Abstract
Using an extensive Australian sample, we explore two related issues in the context of a default risk asset-pricing factor (DEF) over the business cycle: (a) whether a DEF can explain the size premium in the three-factor Fama–French (FF) model; and (b) whether a DEF has a separate role itself in a four-factor version of the FF model. While we find that the default factor does not explain the success of size, our evidence shows it has a complementary role to small minus big and high minus low. Notably, subgroups of test portfolios likely to seriously challenge any asset-pricing model show evidence that the four-factor model is not perfect. Finally, while we find that conditioning on the business cycle itself has little impact, when we condition on a leading indicator, it has a positive (negative) effect on the estimated default (market) risk premium.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
