IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cte/wbrepe/wb024818.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is the risk-return paradox still alive?

Author

Listed:
  • Cano Rodríguez, Manuel

Abstract

To date, the validity of empirical Bowman's paradox papers that employ mean-variance approach for testing the risk/return relationship are inherently unverifiable and their results cannot be generalized. However, this problem can be overcome by developing an econometric model with two fundamental characteristics. The first one is the use of a time series model for each firm, avoiding the traditional cross-sectional analysis. The other one is to estimate a model with a single variable (the firm rate of return), but whose expectation and variance are mathematically related according to behavioral theories hypotheses, forming a heterocedastic model similar to "GARCH". Our results agree with behavioral theories and show that these theories can also be carry out with market measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Cano Rodríguez, Manuel, 2002. "Is the risk-return paradox still alive?," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb024818, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    • Handle: RePEc:cte:wbrepe:wb024818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/rest/api/core/bitstreams/b3689591-3af6-4990-a38c-24a10c07995f/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    2. Lakonishok, Josef & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1994. "Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1541-1578, December.
    3. March, James G., 1988. "Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-24, January.
    4. Timothy W. Ruefli, 1991. "Reply to Bromiley's Comment and Further Results: Paradox Lost Becomes Dilemma Found," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(9), pages 1210-1215, September.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Johannes M. Lehner, 2000. "Shifts of Reference Points for Framing of Strategic Decisions and Changing Risk-Return Associations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 63-76, January.
    7. Gooding, Richard Z. & Goel, Sanjay & Wiseman, Robert M., 1996. "Fixed versus variable reference points in the risk-return relationship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 331-350, March.
    8. Thomas H. Naylor & Francis Tapon, 1982. "The Capital Asset Pricing Model: An Evaluation of its Potential as a Strategic Planning Tool," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(10), pages 1166-1173, October.
    9. Timothy B. Palmer & Robert M. Wiseman, 1999. "Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: a holistic model of risk," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(11), pages 1037-1062, November.
    10. John M. Abowd, 1990. "Does Performance-Based Managerial Compensation Affect Corporate Performance?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(3), pages 52, April.
    11. Davis, James L, 1994. "The Cross-Section of Realized Stock Returns: The Pre-COMPUSTAT Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1579-1593, December.
    12. Ernst R. Berndt & Bronwyn H. Hall & Robert E. Hall & Jerry A. Hausman, 1974. "Estimation and Inference in Nonlinear Structural Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 3, number 4, pages 653-665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Timothy W. Ruefli, 1990. "Mean-Variance Approaches to Risk-Return Relationships in Strategy: Paradox Lost," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 368-380, March.
    14. Karel Cool & Ingemar Dierickx & David Jemison, 1989. "Business strategy, market structure and risk‐return relationships: A structural approach," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(6), pages 507-522, November.
    15. James M. Collins & Timothy W. Ruefli, 1992. "Strategic Risk: An Ordinal Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(12), pages 1707-1731, December.
    16. Wang, Xiaozu, 2000. "Size effect, book-to-market effect, and survival," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3-4), pages 257-273, December.
    17. Fiegenbaum, Avi, 1990. "Prospect theory and the risk-return association : An empirical examination in 85 industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 187-203, October.
    18. Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
    20. Sinha, Tapen, 1994. "Prospect theory and the risk return association: Another look," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 225-231, July.
    21. Roll, Richard & Ross, Stephen A, 1994. "On the Cross-sectional Relation between Expected Returns and Betas," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 101-121, March.
    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. Cano Rodríguez, Manuel, 2002. "Comportamiento heterocedástico entre rentabilidad y riesgo," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB db021710, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    2. Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Cano Rodríguez, Manuel, 2002. "Las tres caras del riesgo estratégico: riesgo sistemático, riesgo táctico y riesgo idiosincrásico," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB db021508, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    4. Henkel, Joachim, 2007. "The Risk-Return Paradox for Strategic Management: Disentangling True and Spurious Effects," CEPR Discussion Papers 6538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Farrukh Mahmood & Robert M. Kunst, 2023. "Modeling nonlinear in Bowman’s paradox: the case of Pakistan," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2357-2372, May.
    6. Fernando Rubio, 2005. "Eficiencia De Mercado, Administracion De Carteras De Fondos Y Behavioural Finance," Finance 0503028, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Jul 2005.
    7. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    8. Gooding, Richard Z. & Goel, Sanjay & Wiseman, Robert M., 1996. "Fixed versus variable reference points in the risk-return relationship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 331-350, March.
    9. Leon Li & Nen-Chen Richard Hwang, 2017. "Prospect Theory and Earnings Manipulation: Examination of the Non-Uniform Relationship between Earnings Manipulation and Stock Returns Using Quantile Regression," Working Papers in Economics 17/25, University of Waikato.
    10. Joo, M. Hashemi & Parhizgari, A.M., 2021. "A behavioral explanation of credit ratings and leverage adjustments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    11. Metin Coskun & Gulsah Kulali, 2016. "Relationship between Accounting Based Risk and Return: Analysis for Turkish Companies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(4), pages 240-240, March.
    12. Díez-Esteban, José María & García-Gómez, Conrado Diego & López-Iturriaga, Félix Javier & Santamaría-Mariscal, Marcos, 2017. "Corporate risk-taking, returns and the nature of major shareholders: Evidence from prospect theory," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 900-911.
    13. Li, Xu & Vermeulen, Freek, 2021. "High risk, low return (and vice versa): the effect of product innovation on firm performance in a transition economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Eero Pätäri & Timo Leivo, 2017. "A Closer Look At Value Premium: Literature Review And Synthesis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 79-168, February.
    15. Keith Lam & Frank Li, 2008. "The risk premiums of the four-factor asset pricing model in the Hong Kong stock market," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(20), pages 1667-1680.
    16. David R Gallagher & Peter A Gardner & Camille H Schmidt, 2015. "Style factor timing: An application to the portfolio holdings of US fund managers," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 40(2), pages 318-350, May.
    17. Zulkefly Abdul Karim & Mohd Azlan Shah Zaidi, 2015. "Monetary Policy, Firm Size and Equity Returns in An Emerging Market: Panel Evidence of Malaysia," Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance (AAMJAF), Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, vol. 11(2), pages 29-55.
    18. Pino G. Audia & Henrich R. Greve, 2006. "Less Likely to Fail: Low Performance, Firm Size, and Factory Expansion in the Shipbuilding Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 83-94, January.
    19. Ayub, Usman & Shah, Syed Zulfiqar Ali & Abbas, Qaisar, 2015. "Robust analysis for downside risk in portfolio management for a volatile stock market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 86-96.
    20. Johannes M. Lehner, 2000. "Shifts of Reference Points for Framing of Strategic Decisions and Changing Risk-Return Associations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 63-76, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cte:wbrepe:wb024818. 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: Ana Poveda (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.business.uc3m.es/es/index .

    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.