Discussion of Acharya and Pedersen 2005, JFE

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

Discussion of Acharya and Pedersen 2005, JFE

Description:

These four betas depend on the asset's payoff and liquidity risks. ... The Four Betas ... Estimation done via GMM, pre-test correction for Betas. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:193
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: BruceM90

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Discussion of Acharya and Pedersen 2005, JFE


1
Discussion of Acharya and Pedersen (2005, JFE)
Asset Pricing with Liquidity Risk
Presenter Bruce Mizrach, Department of
Economics Rutgers University
2
Motivation
The paper provides a theoretical explanation for
3 stylized facts
(1) Return sensitivity to market liquidity is
priced (Pastor and Stambaugh, 2003).
(2) Average liquidity is priced (Ahimud and
Mendelson, 1986).
(3) Liquidity comoves with returns and predicts
future returns (Bekaert et al., 2003).
3
Environment
An overlapping generations economy
N agents who live for two periods
Preferences
I securities.
Dividends
Ex-dividend share price
Liquidity cost
The dividend and liquidity cost process are AR(1)
4
Returns and Illiquidity
Gross return on stock i
Illiquidity of stock i
Market return
Market illiquidity
5
Liquidity Adjusted CAPM
It states that the required excess return is the
expected relative illiquidity cost, plus four
betas times the risk premium. These four betas
depend on the asset's payoff and liquidity risks.
Remark In the unconditional version of the CAPM
(which is tested), the betas are defined somewhat
differently.
6
The Four Betas
(1) As in the standard CAPM, the required return
on an asset increases linearly with the market
beta.
(2) The return increases with the covariance
between the assets illiquidity and the market
illiquidity. This is because investors want to be
compensated for holding a security that becomes
illiquid when the market in general becomes
illiquid.
(3) The second effect on expected returns is due
to covariation between a securitys return and
the market liquidity. It affects required returns
negatively because investors are willing to
accept a lower return on an asset with a high
return in times of market illiquidity.
(4) Investors will accept a lower expected return
on a security that is liquid in a down market.
When the market declines, investors are poor and
the ability to sell easily is especially
valuable. Hence, an investor is willing to accept
a discounted return on stocks with low
illiquidity costs in states of poor market return.
7
Persistence
Prop. 2 states that if liquidity is persistent so
are returns. This is really an assumption
(because we assume liquidity is AR(1)).
Prop. 3 says that, when liquidity is persistent,
returns are low when illiquidity increases.
8
Empirics (1/6) - Liquidity
They use the Ahimud (2002) illiquidity measure
which can be computed from daily data in CRSP
Acharya and Pedersen normalize this measure to
make it stationary
9
Empirics (2/6) - Portfolios
25 portfolios, 1962-1999, exclude Nasdaq stocks
because of volume double counting
Use both value and equal weighted market
portfolios.
Two sorts (i) based on prior year liquidity (ii)
std. deviation of liquidity
10
Empirics (3/6) Market Liquidity
Market illiquidity
Innovations to liquidity
11
Empirics (3/6) Market Liquidity
12
Empirics (5/6) Cross Section
Sigma(liquidity) Sort
CAPM
A-P 4-factor model
Estimation done via GMM, pre-test correction for
Betas.
Remark Note that due to collinearity, most of
the Betas are insignificant.
13
Empirics (6/6) Cross-Section
The data suggest that the Fama-French factors
(including the puzzling value premium) are
mimicking portfolios for risk factors associated
with time variation in risk premia. Once the
CCAPM is modified to account for such time
variation, it performs about as well as the
Fama-French model in explaining the
cross-sectional variation in average returns.
14
Conclusions
  • The required return of a security i
  • is increasing in the covariance between its
    illiquidity and the market illiquidity
  • decreasing in the covariance between the
    securitys return and the market illiquidity, and
  • decreasing in the covariance between its
    illiquidity and market returns,

The model gives an integrated view of the
existing empirical evidence related to liquidity
and liquidity risk. They find that the
liquidity-adjusted CAPM explains the data better
than the standard CAPM.
15
Extensions
Course paper (1) Use alternative proxies for
liquidity (2) Nasdaq stocks (3) International
stocks
Econometricians Estimates the Betas and the
Lambda simultaneously.
Theorists Explain the time variation in returns
due to liquidity.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)