IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lunewp/2002_019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cross Sectional Analysis of the Swedish Stock Market

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper analyses the ability of beta and other factors, like firm size and book-to-market, to explain cross-sectional variation in average stock returns on the Swedish stock market for the period 1980-1990. We correct for errors in variables problem of the estimated market beta. Since this method takes into account the measurement error we do not have to form portfolios and thereby losing information. We use both separate cross-sectional regressions and a pooled regression model to estimate the risk premiums of the different factors. An Extreme Bounds Analysis is utilised for testing the sensitivity of the estimated coefficients to changes in the set of the included explanatory variables. Since the tests are carried out on realised returns, which presumably are quite noisy approximations of expected returns, we study if beta can systematically explain cross-sectional differences among realised stock returns conditional on the sign of the realised market excess return. Our results show that the coefficient for beta is never significantly different from zero, but the estimates differ across the methods mentioned above. However, we find that beta is priced differently in periods with positive versus periods with negative realised market return. In the Extreme Bounds Analysis, the coefficient for the size variable is always significantly negative.

Suggested Citation

  • Asgharian, Hossein & Hansson, Björn, 2002. "Cross Sectional Analysis of the Swedish Stock Market," Working Papers 2002:19, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2002_019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://project.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/Papers/WP02_19.pdf
    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. Jagannathan, Ravi & Wang, Zhenyu, 1996. "The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 3-53, March.
    4. Leamer, Edward E, 1983. "Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 31-43, March.
    5. Pettengill, Glenn N. & Sundaram, Sridhar & Mathur, Ike, 1995. "The Conditional Relation between Beta and Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 101-116, March.
    6. Steven L. Heston & K. Geert Rouwenhorst & Roberto E. Wessels, 1999. "The Role of Beta and Size in the Cross‐Section of European Stock Returns," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 5(1), pages 9-27, March.
    7. Dusan Isakov, 1999. "Is beta still alive? Conclusive evidence from the Swiss stock market," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 202-212.
    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. Jason Hecht, 2008. "Modelling cross-sectional profitability and capital intensity using panel corrected significance tests," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(18), pages 1501-1513.

    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. van Dijk, Mathijs A., 2011. "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 3263-3274.
    2. Ben Sita, Bernard, 2018. "Estimating the beta-return relationship by considering the sign and the magnitude of daily returns," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 28-35.
    3. Robert Faff, 2004. "A simple test of the Fama and French model using daily data: Australian evidence," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 83-92.
    4. Gordon Tang & Wai Cheong Shum, 2006. "Risk-return relationships in the Hong Kong stock market: revisit," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(14), pages 1047-1058.
    5. Andrew Ang & Joseph Chen & Yuhang Xing, 2006. "Downside Risk," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(4), pages 1191-1239.
      • Andrew Ang & Joseph Chen & Yuhang Xing, 2005. "Downside risk," Proceedings, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    6. Richard Mawulawoe Ahadzie & Nagaratnam Jeyasreedharan, 2024. "Higher‐order moments and asset pricing in the Australian stock market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(1), pages 75-128, March.
    7. Tang, Gordon Y. N. & Shum, Wai Cheong, 2004. "The risk-return relations in the Singapore stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 179-195, April.
    8. Morelli, David, 2011. "Joint conditionality in testing the beta-return relationship: Evidence based on the UK stock market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Amir Amel†Zadeh, 2011. "The Return of the Size Anomaly: Evidence from the German Stock Market," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 145-182, January.
    10. Elsas, Ralf & El-Shaer, Mahmoud & Theissen, Erik, 2003. "Beta and returns revisited: Evidence from the German stock market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Rob Bauer & Mathijs Cosemans & Peter C. Schotman, 2010. "Conditional Asset Pricing and Stock Market Anomalies in Europe," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(2), pages 165-190, March.
    12. Tang, Gordon Y. N. & Shum, Wai Cheong, 2003. "The relationships between unsystematic risk, skewness and stock returns during up and down markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 523-541, October.
    13. Miroslav Matteev, 2004. "CAPM Anomalies and the Efficiency of Stock Markets in Transition: Evidence from Bulgaria," South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, Association of Economic Universities of South and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region, vol. 2(1), pages 35-58.
    14. Stefan Nagel, 2013. "Empirical Cross-Sectional Asset Pricing," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 167-199, November.
    15. Chen, Long & Petkova, Ralitsa & Zhang, Lu, 2008. "The expected value premium," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 269-280, February.
    16. Michael Drew & Madhu Veeraraghavan, 2002. "Idiosyncratic Volatility: Evidence from Asia," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 107, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.
    17. de Groot, Wilma & Pang, Juan & Swinkels, Laurens, 2012. "The cross-section of stock returns in frontier emerging markets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 796-818.
    18. Gabriel Hawawini & Donald B. Keim, "undated". "The Cross Section of Common Stock Returns: A Review of the Evidence and Some New Findings," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 08-99, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    19. Fong, Wai Mun, 2012. "Do expected business conditions explain the value premium?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 181-206.
    20. Cooper, Michael J. & Gubellini, Stefano, 2011. "The critical role of conditioning information in determining if value is really riskier than growth," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 289-305, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cross sectional model; Swedish stock returns; errors in variables; extreme bound analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    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:hhs:lunewp:2002_019. 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: Iker Arregui Alegria (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delunse.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.