scholarly journals Risk Factors for the Swiss Stock Market

2008 ◽  
Vol 144 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Ammann ◽  
Michael Steiner
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghulam Abbas ◽  
Shouyang Wang

PurposeThe study aims to analyze the interaction between macroeconomic uncertainty and stock market return and volatility for China and USA and tries to draw some invaluable inferences for the investors, portfolio managers and policy analysts.Design/methodology/approachEmpirically the study uses GARCH family models to capture the time-varying volatility of stock market and macroeconomic risk factors by using monthly data ranging from 1995:M7 to 2018:M6. Then, these volatility series are further used in the multivariate VAR model to analyze the feedback interaction between stock market and macroeconomic risk factors for China and USA. The study also incorporates the impact of Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998 and the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 by using dummy variables in the GARCH model analysis.FindingsThe empirical results of GARCH models indicate volatility persistence in the stock markets and the macroeconomic variables of both countries. The study finds relatively weak and inconsistent unidirectional causality for China mainly running from the stock market to the macroeconomic variables; however, the volatility spillover transmission reciprocates when the impact of Asian financial crisis and Global financial crisis is incorporated. For USA, the contemporaneous relationship between stock market and macroeconomic risk factors is quite strong and bidirectional both at first and second moment level.Originality/valueThis study investigates the interaction between stock market and macroeconomic uncertainty for China and USA. The researchers believe that none of the prior studies has made such rigorous comparison of two of the big and diverse economies (China and USA) which are quite contrasting in terms of political, economic and social background. Therefore, this study also tries to test the presumed conception that macroeconomic uncertainty in China may have different impact on the stock market return and volatility than in USA.


1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 103-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Clare ◽  
Richard Priestley
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 269 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Nascimento Nerasti ◽  
Claudio Ribeiro Lucinda

This paper aims to investigate the existence of persistence in superior performance in Brazilian stock market funds from 2001 to 2014. In order to do so, we used a sample free of survivorship bias and four different market models to characterize the expected return and risk relationship. In all models we were not able to find evidence consistent with superior performance, indicating performance differences could be more attributed to different exposures to risk factors than superior skill. Some additional evidence was found the momentum factor seems to explain a large part of the funds’ excess returns in both top and bottom deciles.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Rafael Igrejas ◽  
Raphael Braga Da Silva ◽  
Marcelo Cabus Klotzle ◽  
Antonio Carlos Figueiredo Pinto ◽  
Paulo Vitor Jordão da Gama Silva

The estimation of cross-section returns for defining investment strategies based on financial multiples has been proven to be relevant following Fama and French’s (1992) research. One of the challenges for such studies is to identify the main variables that are suitable for explaining the returns in a particular context because the variables that are widely used in developed markets behave differently in emerging countries. In this study, we analyze the predictive power of the EV/EBITDA multiple in the context of the Brazilian stock market. The results show that the analyzed multiple has a strong relationship with the future returns of companies listed on the BM&F BOVESPA index between 2005 and 2013. For the period under review, the investment strategy of purchasing stocks when EV/EBITDA was low and selling stocks when EV/EBITDA was high showed abnormal returns of 15.94% per year, even after controlling for risk factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document