IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v69y1993i1p142-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

La perception du risque de titres financiers : l’importance relative et l’influence de certains facteurs de risque

Author

Listed:
  • Gendron, Michel

    (Département de finance et d’assurance, Université Laval)

  • Genest, Christian

    (Département de mathématiques et de statistique, Université Laval)

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the relative importance and influence of various socio-economic, institutional and systemic factors considered relevant to portfolio managers' risk perception of securities. The analysis is based on data from a 1990 survey in which twenty institutional investors from Québec were asked to assess the relative importance of seven factors generally regarded as representative of the multidimensional nature of risk and deemed adequate for determining the respondents' risk rankings of securities from the banking and consumer goods sectors. The individuals' preferences were elicited through paired comparisons expressed on a 1-9 scale and analyzed using a statistical variant, developed by De Jong (1984), of Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process. Despite the wide range of opinions observed as to the relative importance of the various risk factors, the risk rankings of the securities considered turned out to be very similar across factors. A possible explanation of this phenomenon is offered. Cet article présente une analyse de l’importance relative et de l’influence de différents facteurs socio-économiques, institutionnels et systémiques sur la perception du risque de titres financiers chez des gestionnaires de portefeuilles. Les résultats proviennent d’une enquête menée en juin 1990 auprès d’une vingtaine d’investisseurs institutionnels québécois auxquels on avait demandé de quantifier l’importance relative qu’ils accordent à sept facteurs généralement considérés comme représentatifs de l’ensemble des facettes du risque et adéquats pour la détermination du classement du risque de titres provenant de deux secteurs de l’économie, celui des banques et celui de la consommation. Les préférences des répondants, exprimées à partir de comparaisons par paires, ont été étudiées à l’aide d’une variante statistique, proposée par De Jong (1984), du procédé d’analyse hiérarchique de Saaty. Il ressort de cette enquête qu’en dépit d’une grande diversité d’opinions quant à l’importance relative à accorder aux différents facteurs de risque, le classement des titres d’un même secteur varie très peu d’un facteur à l’autre. Une explication de ce phénomène est suggérée.

Suggested Citation

  • Gendron, Michel & Genest, Christian, 1993. "La perception du risque de titres financiers : l’importance relative et l’influence de certains facteurs de risque," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 142-170, mars.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:69:y:1993:i:1:p:142-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/602100ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tinic, Seha M & West, Richard R, 1986. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: A Revisit," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(1), pages 126-147, February.
    2. Bower, Richard S & Bower, Dorothy H, 1969. "Risk and the Valuation of Common Stock," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 349-362, May/June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimosthenis Hevas & Aphroditi Papadaki, 2001. "The information content of investment tax credits," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 173-186.
    2. K. C. John Wei & Stanley R. Stansell, 1991. "Benchmark Error And The Small Firm Effect: A Revisit," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 14(4), pages 359-369, December.
    3. Andrew Ang & Robert J. Hodrick & Yuhang Xing & Xiaoyan Zhang, 2006. "The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 259-299, February.
    4. M. Reza Bradrania & Maurice Peat & Stephen Satchell, 2022. "Liquidity Costs, Idiosyncratic Volatility and Expected Stock Returns," Papers 2211.04695, arXiv.org.
    5. Kyung Shim & Harjoat Bhamra, 2015. "Stochastic Idiosyncratic Operating Risk and Real Options: Implications for Stock Returns," 2015 Meeting Papers 1494, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Elyasiani, Elyas & Mansur, Iqbal, 1998. "Sensitivity of the bank stock returns distribution to changes in the level and volatility of interest rate: A GARCH-M model," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 535-563, May.
    7. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    8. Chung, Kee H. & Wang, Junbo & Wu, Chunchi, 2019. "Volatility and the cross-section of corporate bond returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 397-417.
    9. repec:bla:jfinan:v:58:y:2003:i:5:p:1969-1996 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Durand, Robert B. & Lan, Yihui & Ng, Andrew, 2011. "Conditional beta: Evidence from Asian emerging markets," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 130-153.
    11. Nusret Cakici & Isil Erol & Dogan Tirtiroglu, 2014. "Tracking the Evolution of Idiosyncratic Risk and Cross-Sectional Expected Returns for US REITs," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 415-440, April.
    12. Xiaoli Wang, 2017. "Will firm quality determine the relationship between stock return and idiosyncratic volatility? A new investigation of idiosyncratic volatility," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(5), pages 388-404, September.
    13. Tariq Aziz & Valeed Ahmad Ansari, 2017. "Idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns: Indian evidence," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1420998-142, January.
    14. Qadan, Mahmoud, 2019. "Risk appetite, idiosyncratic volatility and expected returns," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Hung, Weifeng & Yang, J. Jimmy, 2018. "The MAX effect: Lottery stocks with price limits and limits to arbitrage," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 77-91.
    16. Lee, Yuan-Ming & Wang, Kuan-Min, 2011. "The effectiveness of the sunshine effect in Taiwan's stock market before and after the 1997 financial crisis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 710-727, January.
    17. Scherer, Bernd, 2011. "A note on the returns from minimum variance investing," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 652-660, September.
    18. Gilles Boevi Koumou, 2020. "Diversification and portfolio theory: a review," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(3), pages 267-312, September.
    19. G. A. Karathanassis & S. N. Spilioti, 2004. "An Empirical Examination of Traditional Equity Valuation Models: The case of the Athens Stock Exchange," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1-2), pages 133-142.
    20. Partha Gangopadhyay, 1994. "Risk-Return Seasonality And Macroeconomic Variables," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 17(3), pages 347-361, September.
    21. John S. Bildersee & Joshua Ronen, 1987. "Stock returns and real activity in an inflationary environment: The informational impact of FAS No. 33," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 89-110, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:69:y:1993:i:1:p:142-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Dostie The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Benoit Dostie to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.