Downside Beta Research Articles

Performance and Volatility Modelling for Shariah Compliant Stocks in Malaysia Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Average

The diversity of investment in Malaysia provides an excellent platform to gauge volatility. Malaysia as an emerging market with a rich Islamic culture serves as an inspiration to randomly model a portfolio of 50 Shariah compliant stock returns from 2015 to 2020. The systematic risk of a company’s stock returns is measured by computing the volatility and downside volatility for the said period. The Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) method is used to outline the risk levels of Shariah compliant stocks for the recent stipulated period. The results indicate a statistical difference between beta and downside beta for Shariah compliant portfolio. This signals investors to be cognisant of the semi-variant characteristics of returns in estimating volatility. Meanwhile, there is no significant difference in performance using the Sharpe and Sortino ratio on the beta and downside beta scores respectively. Consequently, this suggests that investors can always measure performance to a sufficient degree of accuracy regardless of their volatility choice.

The impact of time-varying risk on stock returns: an experiment of cubic piecewise polynomial function model and the Fourier Flexible Form model

<abstract> <p>With fast evolving econometric techniques being adopted in asset pricing, traditional linear asset pricing models have been criticized by their limited function on capturing the time-varying nature of data and risk, especially the absence of data smoothing is of concern. In this paper, the impact of data smoothing is explored by applying two asset pricing models with non-linear feature: cubic piecewise polynomial function (CPPF) model and the Fourier Flexible Form (FFF) model are performed on US stock returns as an experiment. The traditional beta coefficient is treated asymmetrically as downside beta and upside beta in order to capture corresponding risk, and further, to explore the risk premia attached in a cross-sectional context. It is found that both models show better goodness of fit comparing to classic linear asset pricing model cross-sectionally. When appropriate knots and orders are determined by Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), the goodness of fit is further improved, and the model with both CPPF and FFF betas employed showed the best fit among other models. The findings fill the gap in literature, specifically on both investigating and pricing the time variation and asymmetric nature of systematic risk. The methods and models proposed in this paper embed advanced mathematical techniques of data smoothing and widen the options of asset pricing models. The application of proposed models is proven to superiorly provide high degree of explanatory power to capture and price time-varying risk in stock market.</p> </abstract>

Beliefs about Beta: Upside Participation and Downside Protection

In a large online experiment, we study how investors assess the relationship between their portfolio and the stock market. Participants either select a portfolio of stocks or are randomly assigned a portfolio from a U.S. stock market index. They state their portfolio return expectations conditional on different market outcomes, allowing us to calculate implied beliefs about portfolio beta. We find a general underestimation of beta, which is particularly strong for downside beta. This asymmetric assessment of dependence is amplified for participants who select a portfolio themselves instead of receiving a randomly assigned portfolio. They believe their portfolio goes up with the market but does not come down with it. Our findings reveal yet unknown patterns in beliefs about systematic risk, which shed light on the source of investor overconfidence.

Performance and Volatility Modelling for Shariah Compliant Stocks in Malaysia Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Average

The diversity of investment in Malaysia provides an excellent platform to gauge volatility. Malaysia as an emerging market with a rich Islamic culture serves as an inspiration to randomly model a portfolio of 50 Shariah compliant stock returns from 2015 to 2020. The systematic risk of a company’s stock returns is measured by computing the volatility and downside volatility for the said period. The Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) method is used to outline the risk levels of Shariah compliant stocks for the recent stipulated period. The results indicate a statistical difference between beta and downside beta for Shariah compliant portfolio. This signals investors to be cognisant of the semi-variant characteristics of returns in estimating volatility. Meanwhile, there is no significant difference in performance using the Sharpe and Sortino ratio on the beta and downside beta scores respectively. Consequently, this suggests that investors can always measure performance to a sufficient degree of accuracy regardless of their volatility choice.

Multidimensional brand equity and asymmetric risk

The authors investigate the extent to which central customer-based brand equity dimensions (Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, Knowledge, and Energy) influence a firm’s systematic risk (i.e., beta) during both market upturns and downturns. The results demonstrate that aggregating upside and downside beta or different dimensions of brand equity masks the true associations which can be seen only in the disaggregate analyses. The authors find that Relevance and Knowledge play roles as stabilizers, showing negative relationships with both upside gains and downside risk, while Esteem plays the role of protector, showing a negative relationship with only downside losses and not influencing upside gains; Energy acts as a booster, being positively associated with a firm’s potential gains in a period of market growth without increasing the firm’s expected losses during a bad market. The positive relationship of Energy with aggregate risk could be misleading as it hides the beneficial effect of Energy as a booster. The authors also find that Relevance is the most important consideration when people make choices in bad market situations, while Energy becomes the most crucial deciding factor in good market situations. Taking advantage of the multidimensional constructs of brand equity while allowing for the asymmetrical characteristics of risk enables managers to capture the differential role of each brand equity dimension in influencing firm risks, which leads to more sophisticated strategic decisions regarding risk management. In addition to general brand strategy, the authors provide tailored brand strategies to firms from different industries or with different financial characteristics.

Downside Risk-Based Six-Factor Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): A New Paradigm in Asset Pricing

The importance of downside risk cannot be denied. In this study, we have replaced beta in the five-factor model of using downside beta and have added a momentum factor to suggest a new six-factor downside beta capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Two models are tested—a beta- and momentum-based six-factor model and a downside-beta- (proxy of downside risk) and momentum-based six-factor model. Beta and downside beta are highly correlated; therefore, portfolios are double-sorted to disentangle the correlation. Factor loadings, i.e., size, value, momentum, profitability, and investment, are constructed. The standard methodologies are applied. Data for sample stocks from different non-financial sectors listed in the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) are taken from January 2000 to December 2018. The PSX-100 index and three-month T-bills are taken as proxies for market and risk-free returns. The study uses three subsamples for robustness—period of very high volatility, period of stability, and period of stability and growth with volatility. The results show that the value factor is redundant in both models. The momentum factor is rejected in the beta-based six-factor model only. The beta-based six-factor model shows very low R2 in periods of highly volatility. The R2 is high for the other periods. In contrast, the downside beta six-factor model captures the downside trend of the market in an effective manner with a relatively high R2. The risk–return relationship is stronger for the downside beta model. These reasons lead us to believe that, overall, the downside beta six-factor model is a better option for investors as compared to the beta-based six-factor model in the area of asset pricing models.

Can unpredictable risk exposure be priced?

We study the link between beta predictability and the price of risk. An investor who desires exposure to a certain risk factor needs to predict what next period’s beta will be. We use a simple model to show that an ambiguity averse agent’s demand is lower when betas are hard to predict, leading to a reduction in risk premiums. We test the implications for downside betas and VIX betas. We find that they have economically and statistically small prices of risk once we account for the fact that an investor cannot observe ex-post realized betas when determining asset demand.

Market and Accounting Risk Factors of Asset Pricing in the Classical and Downside Approaches

<p>Theoretical background: The variability of the company’s profitability is the result of the accompanying risk. To compare the profitability of many companies, relative profitability measures, which include profitability ratios, are more convenient. This article analyses market and accounting risk factors of CAPM. Risk was considered in variance and downside framework. Market betas, accounting betas were used in an extended version of the asset pricing model. Additionally, the influence of profitability ratios, such as ROA and ROE on the average rate of return on the capital market are considered.</p><p>Purpose of the article: The main purpose of this study is to test the standard and extended CAPM relations between systematic risk measures and mean returns for single companies quoted on the Polish capital market and equally-weighted portfolios in two approaches: variance and downside risk.</p><p>Research methods: The research based on individual securities and portfolios, compares the one-factor risk-return relationships with two-factor ones estimated using mean returns in cross-sectional regressions. The regressors were expressed in absolute terms and classical and downside beta coefficients. The sample includes companies differing in terms of size and across different industries.</p><p>Main findings: Portfolios with higher classical or downside market betas generate higher mean returns. The negative risk premium for accounting betas for variance and downside risk was identified. It is not in accordance with our earlier study of the Polish construction sector, where a positive and significant risk premium for downside accounting betas was found. The highest explanatory power of rates on returns on the Polish capital market were found for average ROA and ROE. This confirms the results of the previous studies on the Polish capital market for food and construction sectors.</p>

Anomalies in Commodity Futures Markets: Risk or Mispricing?

In recent years, commodity markets have become increasingly popular among financial investors. While previous studies document a factor structure, not much is known about how prominent anomalies are priced in commodity futures markets. We examine a large set of such anomaly variables. We identify sizable premia for jump risk, momentum, skewness, and volatility-of-volatility. Other prominent variables, such as downside beta, idiosyncratic volatility, and MAX, are not priced in commodity futures markets. Commodity investors should rebalance their portfolios regularly. Returns for annual holding periods are substantially weaker than for monthly rebalancing.

Are Islamic mutual funds exposed to lower risk compared to their conventional counterparts?

Purpose This study aims to comparatively analyze the systematic, idiosyncratic and downside risk exposure of both Islamic and conventional funds in Pakistan to see which of the funds has higher risk exposure. Design/methodology/approach The study analyzes different types of risks involved in both Islamic and conventional funds for the period from 2009 to 2016 by using different risk measures. For systematic and idiosyncratic risk single factor CAPM and multifactor models such as Fama French three factors model and Carhart four factors model are used. For downside risk analysis different measures such as downside beta, relative beta, value at risk and expected short fall are used. Findings The study finds that Islamic funds have lower risk exposure (including total, systematic, idiosyncratic and downside risk) compared with their conventional counterparts in most of the sample years, and hence, making them appear more attractive for investment especially for Sharīʿah-compliant investors preferring low risk preferences. Practical implications As this study shows, Islamic mutual funds exhibit lower risk exposure than their conventional counterparts so investors with lower risk preferences can invest in these kinds of funds. In this way, this research provides the input to the individual investors (especially Sharīʿah-compliant investors who want to avoid interest based investment) to help them with their investment decisions as they can make a more diversified portfolio by considering Islamic funds as a mean for reducing the risk exposure. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first attempt at world level in looking at the comparative risk analysis of various types of the risks as follows: systematic, idiosyncratic and downside risk, for both Islamic and conventional funds, and thus, provides significant contribution in the literature of mutual funds.

Downside beta and the cross section of equity returns: A decade later

AbstractThis study reexamines the relation between downside beta and equity returns in the United States. First, we replicate the 2006 work of Ang, Chen, and Xing who find a positive relation between downside beta and future equity returns for equal‐weighted portfolios of NYSE stocks. We show that this relation doesn't hold after using value‐weighted returns or controlling for various return determinants. We also extend the original sample, add AMEX/NASDAQ stocks or utilize alternative downside beta measures and still find no downside risk premium. We focus on factor analysis results, persistence of downside beta, and various subsamples to understand the economic reasons behind the findings.

Asset Pricing Through Downside Risk Based Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan Stock Exchange

This study extends the downside risk applications in multifactor asset pricing model by incorporating the downside risk spillovers from economic and financial factors to stock returns. We amplify the conventional APT model by replacing the variance-based betas with semivariance based downside betas that better capture the risk volatilities in varying market conditions. The inclusion of downside risk betas based on semivariance and semideviation methods in the augmented asset pricing model improves both the theoretical and methodological applications relative to the limitations and restriction of conventional APT factors model. The mean-variance hypothesis replaced by meansemivariance hypothesis and asymmetric behaviour of stock returns distribution, empirically suggest the use of an alternative factors model. The models based on downside risk premia for asset pricing in emerging markets. The study tested the downside risk-return relationship based on the excess monthly stock returns of listed PSX firms and observed economic, financial and global factors representing spillover triangulation from 1997 to 2017. The findings of the study indicate that the augmented DR-APT model with pricing restrictions of unconditional linear factors method could not be deserted over the targeted period of study. The selected observed pricing factors except exports are significant enough for pricing the security returns in the augmented DR-APT Model. Findings of the panel regression, likelihood ratio tests and F-test corroborate DR-APT as a better model to price stock returns in volatile situations compare to conventional APT model. Our findings are consistent with the downside risk-return framework based on mean semi variance hypothesis and have implications for managers and decision markets that incorporate downside risk in asset valuation, cost of capital estimations, portfolio construction and investment analysis decisions. Key Words: Downside Risk, Semi variance, Semi covariance, Downside Beta, Downside risk-based Arbitrage Pricing Theory (DR-APT).

Can Unpredictable Risk Exposure Be Priced?

We study the link between beta predictability and the price of risk. An investor who desires exposure to a certain risk factor needs to predict what next period's beta will be. We use a simple model to show that an ambiguity averse agent's demand is lower when betas are hard to predict, leading to a reduction in risk premiums. We test the implications for downside betas and VIX betas. We find that they have economically and statistically small prices of risk once we account for the fact that an investor cannot observe ex-post realized betas when determining asset demand.

Two-Side Cvars and the Cross-Sectional Expected Stock Returns: Evidences from Chinese Stock Market

Recently, tail risks have attracted much attention in the literature for their role in predicting the cross-sectional expected returns of stocks. Using a modified conditional value at risk (CVaR), the extreme loss and gain of stocks can be measured using the left-tail CVaR- and the right-tail CVaR+, respectively. The left and right tail CVaRs are unified as two-side CVaRs that correspond to the two-side tails of returns. We empirically examine the relationship between two-side CVaRs and the cross-sectional expected returns of stocks, obtain the findings with significantly negative relations, and both economically and statistically. The empirical results are robust even after controlling for firm size, idiosyncratic volatility, liquidity risk, downside beta, and the maximum daily return in the previous month (MAX). The pricing powers of two-side CVaRs are strongly significant and cannot be explained by the Fama-French three- and five-factor models.

Higher Co-Moments and Downside Beta in Asset Pricing

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) assumes a linear relationship between an assetA­s return and financial market. However, empirical invalidity of linearity of returns has given birth to other CAPM models. Therefore, this study aims to examine the implication of preference by a risk-averse investor for higher moments and downside risk as investors are assumed to be prudent, temperate and cautious and prefer firms with negative co-skewness, positive co-kurtosis, and downside risk as they yield higher risk premium. To empirically test these theoretical assumptions data of all 901 firms (listed and delisted) in Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) from 2000 to 2016 have been used. Decile portfolios are constructed for cross-sectional and time series analysis. Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) and Wald Test are applied to check the robustness of results. The results indicate that co-skewness, co-kurtosis and downside beta are important risk factors but only downside beta is genuinely priced over and above what co-variance risk can explain and CAPM does not significantly capture market risk premium indicating the existence of other risk measures in PSX. The findings can help investors in formulating investment strategies for constructing well-diversified and efficient portfolios and can enable firm managers to take appropriate capital budgeting decisions by appropriately costing equities.

Does downside risk matter more in asset pricing? Evidence from China

This study examines if downside risk matters in asset pricing. Using a comprehensive sample of 3658 companies listed on the Chinese stock market from 1998 to 2017, evidence shows a positive reward for holding stocks with high downside risk, and this reward is not explained by other cross-sectional effects and remains robust across robustness tests. Downside beta is also found to be useful in the implementation of successful trading strategies in the medium and long term. By contrast, mixed results are found on the premiums robustness of total risk and semi-deviation, while no evidence of beta effect could be found.

Systematic extreme downside risk

We propose new systematic tail risk measures constructed using two different approaches. The first is a non-parametric measure that captures the tendency of a stock to crash at the same time as the market, while the second is based on the sensitivity of stock returns to innovations in market crash risk. Both tail risk measures are associated with a significantly positive risk premium after controlling for other measures of downside risk, including downside beta, coskewness and cokurtosis. Using the new measures, we examine the relevance for investors of the tail risk premium over different horizons.

The impact of downside risk on UK stock returns

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate patterns in UK stock returns related to downside risk, with particular focus on stock returns during financial crises.Design/methodology/approachFirst, stocks are sorted into five quintile portfolios based on the relevant beta values (classic beta, downside beta and upside beta, calculated by the moving window approach). Second, patterns of portfolio returns are examined during various sub-periods. Finally, predictive powers of beta and downside beta are examined.FindingsThe downside risk is observed to have a significant positive impact on contemporaneous stock returns and a negative impact on future returns in general. In contrast, an inverse relationship between risk and return is observed when stocks are sorted by beta, contrary to the classic literature. UK stock returns exhibit clear time sensitivity, especially during financial crises.Originality/valueThis paper focuses on the impact of the downside risk on UK stock returns, assessed via a comprehensive sub-period analysis. This paper fills the gap in the existing literature, in which very few studies examine the time sensitivity in relation to the downside risk and the risk-return anomaly in the UK stock market using a long sample period.

Sustainability Managed against Downside Risk and the Cost of Equity: Evidence in Korea

This study examines the relationship between sustainability managed against downside risk and the cost of equity in the Korean stock market during the 2000–2016 period. We employ downside co-skewness and downside beta as a measure of downside risk, to analyze the cross-sectional relationship between them and average portfolio stock returns. We have also carried out Fama–MacBeth regressions to find the required return for bearing downside risk. The results show that downside co-skewness can be used more effectively than downside beta to explain a cross-section of stock returns or cost of equity. The required premium for bearing downside risk, as measured by downside co-skewness, is approximately 19% per annum in the Korean stock market. This finding suggests that sustainable companies can raise their capital in the form of equity at 19% lower costs, and also implies that increasing sustainability can reduce the cost of capital.

Cross-Section of Asset Returns: Emerging Markets and Market Integration

Asset pricing in its essence is a very controversial topic. Despite numerous research papers criticising traditional approaches, such as linear factor models, practitioners as well as academics repeatedly return to the milestone models such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), mainly due to their attractive simplicity. This article focuses on the risk-return relationship by comparing the power of traditional and alternative asset pricing models in explaining the cross-section of asset returns. The focus is on unconditional models, commonly used among investors and equity analysts. This paper is based on the research performed by Estrada in 2004 and it extends his approach by introducing the use of GMM. The results suggest that for Emerging markets' investors should give preference to total risk measures over systematic risk measures. Within the category of systematic risk measures, downside beta proved its superiority to traditional CAPM beta. The results can be attributed to delayed integration process, partially justified by the lower FDI and portfolio investments into Emerging markets.