IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01993422.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Excess Returns of 'Quality' Stocks: A Behavioral Anomaly

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Philippe Bouchaud

    (CFM - Capital Fund Management - Capital Fund Management)

  • Ciliberti Stefano
  • Augustin Landier

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Guillaume Simon

    (UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse)

  • David Thesmar

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This note investigates the causes of the quality anomaly, which is one of the strongest and most scalable anomalies in equity markets. We explore two potential explanations. The "risk view", whereby investing in high quality firms is somehow riskier, so that the higher returns of a quality portfolio are a compensation for risk exposure. This view is consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The other view is the "behavioral view", which states that some investors persistently underestimate the true value of high quality firms. We find no evidence in favor of the "risk view": The returns from investing in quality firms are abnormally high on a risk-adjusted basis, and are not prone to crashes. We provide novel evidence in favor of the "behavioral view": In their forecasts of future prices, and while being overall overoptimistic, analysts systematically underestimate the future return of high quality firms, compared to low quality firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Philippe Bouchaud & Ciliberti Stefano & Augustin Landier & Guillaume Simon & David Thesmar, 2016. "The Excess Returns of 'Quality' Stocks: A Behavioral Anomaly," Working Papers hal-01993422, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01993422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Guedj & Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2005. "Experts' Earning Forecasts: Bias, Herding And Gossamer Information," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(07), pages 933-946.
    2. Kewei Hou, 2007. "Industry Information Diffusion and the Lead-lag Effect in Stock Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1113-1138.
    3. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2012. "What Can Survey Forecasts Tell Us about Information Rigidities?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 116-159.
    4. Nicola Gennaioli & Yueran Ma & Andrei Shleifer, 2016. "Expectations and Investment," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 379-431.
    5. Jean-Philippe Bouchaud & Philipp Krueger & Augustin Landier & David Thesmar, 2016. "Sticky Expectations and Stock Market Anomalies," Working Papers hal-01993418, HAL.
    6. Augustin Landier & Guillaume Simon & David Thesmar, 2015. "The Capacity of Trading Strategies," Working Papers hal-02011394, HAL.
    7. Barroso, Pedro & Santa-Clara, Pedro, 2015. "Momentum has its moments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 111-120.
    8. Augustin Landier & David Thesmar, 2009. "Financial Contracting with Optimistic Entrepreneurs," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 117-150, January.
    9. Alon Brav & Reuven Lehavy & Roni Michaely, 2005. "Using Expectations to Test Asset Pricing Models," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 34(3), Fall.
    10. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    11. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Asness, Clifford & Frazzini, Andrea & Israel, Ronen & Moskowitz, Tobias J. & Pedersen, Lasse H., 2018. "Size matters, if you control your junk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 479-509.
    2. Rai, Anish & Mahata, Ajit & Nurujjaman, Md & Majhi, Sushovan & Debnath, Kanish, 2022. "A sentiment-based modeling and analysis of stock price during the COVID-19: U- and Swoosh-shaped recovery," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 592(C).
    3. Thillaikkoothan Palanichamy & Parthajit Kayal, 2022. "Multiple Dimensions of Cyclicality in Investing," Working Papers 2022-216, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    4. Rizzo, Emanuele, 2018. "Essays on corporate governance and the impact of regulation on financial markets," Other publications TiSEM b5158260-ea13-4763-b992-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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. Jean‐Philippe Bouchaud & Philipp Krüger & Augustin Landier & David Thesmar, 2019. "Sticky Expectations and the Profitability Anomaly," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(2), pages 639-674, April.
    2. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, January.
    3. Crump, Richard K. & Eusepi, Stefano & Tambalotti, Andrea & Topa, Giorgio, 2022. "Subjective intertemporal substitution," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 118-133.
    4. Chen, Cheng & Senga, Tatsuro & Sun, Chang & Zhang, Hongyong, 2023. "Uncertainty, imperfect information, and expectation formation over the firm’s life cycle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 60-77.
    5. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    6. Cederburg, Scott & O’Doherty, Michael S. & Wang, Feifei & Yan, Xuemin (Sterling), 2020. "On the performance of volatility-managed portfolios," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 95-117.
    7. Christian Gillitzer & Nalini Prasad & Tim Robinson, 2021. "Political Attitudes and Inflation Expectations: Evidence and Implications," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 53(4), pages 605-634, June.
    8. Balduzzi, Pierluigi & Brancati, Emanuele & Brianti, Marco & Schiantarelli, Fabio, 2024. "Credit constraints and firms’ decisions: Lessons from the COVID-19 outbreak," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    9. Francis, Bill B. & Mougoué, Mbodja & Panchenko, Valentyn, 2010. "Is there a symmetric nonlinear causal relationship between large and small firms?," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 23-38, January.
    10. Ferrando, Annalisa & Popov, Alexander & Udell, Gregory F., 2022. "Unconventional monetary policy, funding expectations, and firm decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    11. Cole, Stephen J. & Milani, Fabio, 2021. "Heterogeneity in individual expectations, sentiment, and constant-gain learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 627-650.
    12. Frache, Serafin & Lluberas, Rodrigo & Turen, Javier, 2024. "Belief-dependent pricing decisions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Zeno Enders & Michael Kleemann & Gernot J. Muller, 2021. "Growth Expectations, Undue Optimism, and Short-Run Fluctuations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(5), pages 905-921, December.
    14. Vitor Azevedo & Christopher Hoegner, 2023. "Enhancing stock market anomalies with machine learning," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 195-230, January.
    15. Schmeling, Maik & Schrimpf, Andreas & Steffensen, Sigurd A.M., 2022. "Monetary policy expectation errors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 841-858.
    16. Victoria Dobrynskaya, 2017. "Dynamic Momentum and Contrarian Trading," HSE Working papers WP BRP 61/FE/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Marie Brière & Ariane Szafarz, 2021. "When it rains, it pours: Multifactor asset management in good and bad times," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 44(3), pages 641-669, September.
    18. Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Joseph E. Stiglitz & Tania Treibich, 2020. "Rational Heuristics? Expectations And Behaviors In Evolving Economies With Heterogeneous Interacting Agents," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1487-1516, July.
    19. Christopher Roth & Sonja Settele & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Risk Exposure and Acquisition of Macroeconomic Information," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 34-53, March.
    20. Massenot, Baptiste & Pettinicchi, Yuri, 2018. "Can firms see into the future? Survey evidence from Germany," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 66-79.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Quality anomaly; financial analysts misplaced focus; behavioral biases;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-01993422. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.