Comparing Asset Pricing Factor Models under Multivariate t-Distribution: Evidence from China

Factor models provide a cornerstone for understanding financial asset pricing; however, research on China’s stock market risk premia is still limited. Motivated by this, this paper proposes a four-factor model for China’s stock market that includes a market factor, a size factor, a value factor, and a liquidity factor. We compare our four-factor model with a set of prominent factor models based on newly developed likelihood-ratio tests and Bayesian methods. Along with the comparison, we also find supporting evidence for the alternative t-distribution assumption for empirical asset pricing studies. Our results show the following: (1) distributional tests suggest that the returns of factors and stock return anomalies are fat-tailed and therefore are better captured by t-distributions than by normality; (2) under t-distribution assumptions, our four-factor model outperforms a set of prominent factor models in terms of explaining the factors in each other, pricing a comprehensive list of stock return anomalies, and Bayesian marginal likelihoods; (3) model comparison results vary across normality and t-distribution assumptions, which suggests that distributional assumptions matter for asset pricing studies. This paper contributes to the literature by proposing an effective asset pricing factor model and providing factor model comparison tests under non-normal distributional assumptions in the context of China.

Are Transient Institutions Sophisticated Enough to Interpret Small Negative Earnings Surprises?

Institutional investors (active vs. passive) play various roles in the capital market and in assets prices, in particular. Institutional investors affect assets prices either because they play a monitoring role and mitigate the agency problem, or because they have information advantages, or finally, they can arbitrage away mispricing. This research note relates Hu, Ke, and Yu’s (forthcoming) article to both the traditional positive views that institutional investors are sophisticated and help correct stock mispricing and the complementary emerging literature that argues that institutions may contribute to stock return anomalies rather than eliminate them. My research note concludes that current research on the role of institutional investors has generated a number of useful insights. I identify many fundamental questions that remain unanswered, and changes in the economic environment that raise new questions for research.