The Effects of Market Frictions on Idiosyncratic Risk Premium: An Empirical Study of the Main Board of China's A Stocks
LI Shaoyu, ZHANG Teng, SHANG Yuhuang, ZHOU Yu
International Business College, South China Normal University; School of Securities and Futures/Institute of Chinese Financial Studies, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
Summary:
Due to asymmetric information, trading costs, buy and sell constraints, lack of short-sales mechanisms, and exogenous shocks, the effects of market frictions on stock returns are more serious in China's A-share stock market than in developed foreign stock markets. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask how market frictions affect the pricing effect of idiosyncratic risks in China. In practice, answering this question would support the improvement and development of the capital market in China and help investors construct reasonable investment strategies. The question also suggests a new theoretical perspective: using market frictions to explain market anomalies (e.g., the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle and idiosyncratic skewness premium). Many studies of non-Chinese markets (e.g., Mitton and Vorkink, 2007; Barberis and Huang, 2008; Bali and Cakici, 2008) use risk preferences and liquidity to explain the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle. However, studies show that there is a negative relationship between idiosyncratic risk and stock return in the Chinese stock market. Heterogeneous belief (e.g., Zuo et al., 2011; Long et al., 2018), gambling preferences (Zheng et al., 2013), and limited arbitrage (Yu et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018) contribute to this negative relationship (puzzle). However, studies of both foreign and domestic markets ignore the effects of market friction. We attempt to investigate the pricing effects of various dimensions of market friction and explore the mechanism through which pricing factor affects idiosyncratic risk. Our samples are drawn from the main board of China's A-share stock market for the 2001 to 2015 period. We first introduce continuous and discrete market friction variables to represent the dimensions of information asymmetry, trading costs, price shocks, price limit constraints, short-selling constraints, future trading constraints, and exogenous shocks. Second, the idiosyncratic volatility and idiosyncratic skewness variables are derived from a three-factor regression and five-factor regression, respectively. Then, they are used in a Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression to test the pricing effects and how these effects influence idiosyncratic risk premiums. We try to discuss the effects of the market friction factors on idiosyncratic risk premiums via liquidity channels. Finally, we use a weighted market friction index in a robustness test of the empirical results and conduct a portfolio analysis to infer the characteristics of idiosyncratic risk premiums under different market frictions. Empirical studies indicate that the idiosyncratic risk factors, including idiosyncratic volatility, idiosyncratic skewness, and market frictions, have significant premiums. Market frictions enhance idiosyncratic volatility via decreased liquidity in the form of trading time, trading frequency, trading number, trading demand, and trading speed. Market frictions weakly influence idiosyncratic skewness. We also find that the absolute returns of portfolio strategies based on idiosyncratic risk factors outweigh those of CAPM, the three-factor model, and the five-factor model. Furthermore, the returns of portfolio strategies based on idiosyncratic risk factors are impacted by market frictions, which confirms the findings of the regressions. We make two contributions to the literature. First, we partially explain the effect of market frictions on idiosyncratic volatility and to identify the driving mechanisms as stock liquidity (trading time cost, trading frequency, trading hours, trading inclination, and trading speed), although the effect of the market frictions on idiosyncratic skewness is relatively weak. Second, we find that portfolios constructed using idiosyncratic risk variables have higher absolute returns than the CAPM, three-factor, and five-factor portfolios. As a result of market frictions, the absolute return of a portfolio based on idiosyncratic volatility shrinks. The findings indicate that market liquidity is indispensable to avoid market crashes when managing systematic and contagious risks from international markets. It is also necessary to control for the spread of liquidity, and we should be cautious in assessing the individual stock risks incurred by the overflow of liquidity. In particular, it is necessary to develop policies for directional liquidity injection and for differentiating capital costs. Additionally, our work can be extended to study abnormal types of market friction, such as global public health crises and climate-related shocks.
李少育, 张滕, 尚玉皇, 周宇. 市场摩擦对特质风险溢价的影响效应——基于A股主板市场的实证分析[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 494(8): 190-206.
LI Shaoyu, ZHANG Teng, SHANG Yuhuang, ZHOU Yu. The Effects of Market Frictions on Idiosyncratic Risk Premium: An Empirical Study of the Main Board of China's A Stocks. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 494(8): 190-206.
[1] 李志冰、杨光艺、冯永昌和景亮,2017,《五因子模型在中国股票市场的实证检验》,《金融研究》第444期,第191～206页。 [2] 罗进辉、向元高和金思静,2017,《中国资本市场低价股的溢价之谜》,《金融研究》第439期,第195～210页。 [3] 熊熊、孟永强、李冉和沈德华,2017,《特质波动率与股票收益——基于Fama-French五因子模型的研究》,《系统科学与数学》第37期,第1595～1604页。 [4] 虞文微、张兵和于琴,2017,《套利限制与中国股票市场 “特质波动率之谜”》,《北京工商大学学报 (社会科学版)》第 32期,第93～103页。 [5] 张峥、李怡宗、张玉龙和刘翔,2013,《中国股市流动性间接指标的检验——基于买卖价差的实证分析》,《经济学(季刊)》第13期,第233～262页。 [6] 郑振龙、王磊和王路跖,2013,《特质偏度是否被定价》,《管理科学学报》第16期,第1～12页。 [7] 左浩苗、郑鸣和张翼,2011,《股票特质波动率与横截面收益:对中国股市“特质波动率之谜”的解释》,《世界经济》第5期,第117～135页。 [8] Amihud, Y. 2002. “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-Section and Time-Series effects”, Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1):31～56. [9] Ang, A., R. J. Hodrick, Y. Xing, and X. Zhang. 2006. “The Cross-Section of Volatility and Expected Returns”, Journal of Finance, 51: 259～299. [10] Bali, T. G., and N. Cakici. 2008. “Idiosyncratic Volatility and The Cross Section Of Expected Returns”, Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 43(1):29～58. [11] Barberis, N., and M. Huang. 2008. “Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices”, American Economic Review, 98(5):2066～2100. [12] Fama, E. F., and J. D. Macbeth. 1973. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests”, Journal of Political Economy, 81(3):607～636. [13] Goyenko, R. Y., Holden, C. W., and Trzcinka, C. A. 2009. “Do Liquidity Measures Measure Liquidity？” Journal of Financial Economics, 92(2):153～181. [14] Gu, M., W. Kang, and B. Xu. 2018. “Limits Of Arbitrage and Idiosyncratic Volatility: Evidence from China Stock Market”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 86: 240～258. [15] Hou, K., and R. Loh. 2016. “Have We Solved The Idiosyncratic Volatility Puzzle？” Journal of Financial Economics, 121(1):167～194. [16] Kumar, A. 2009. “Who Gambles in The Stock Market？” Journal of Finance, 64(4):1889～1933. [17] Long, H., Y. Jiang, and Y. Zhu. 2018. “Idiosyncratic Tail Risk and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from The Chinese Stock Markets”, Finance Research Letters, 24: 129～136. [18] Mitton, T., and K. Vorkink. 2007. “Equilibrium Underdiversification and The Preference for Skewness”, Review of Financial Studies, 20(4):1255～1288. [19] Merton, R. 1987. “A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information”, Journal of Finance, 42: 483～510. [20] Petersen, M. A. 2009. “Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Datasets”, Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435～480.
