Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:37:30.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conditional Relation between Beta and Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Glenn N. Pettengill ,
Sridhar Sundaram  and
Ike Mathur
Glenn N. Pettengill
Affiliation:
School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS 66801–5087
Sridhar Sundaram
Affiliation:
School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS 66801–5087
Ike Mathur
Affiliation:
College of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 6290
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unlike previous studies, this paper finds a consistent and highly significant relationship between beta and cross-sectional portfolio returns. The key distinction between our tests and previous tests is the recognition that the positive relationship between returns and beta predicted by the Sharpe-Lintner-Black model is based on expected rather than realized returns. In periods where excess market returns are negative, an inverse relationship between beta and portfolio returns should exist. When we adjust for the expectations concerning negative market excess returns, we find a consistent and significant relationship between beta and returns for the entire sample, for subsample periods, and for data divided by months in a year. Separately, we find support for a positive payment for beta risk.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 101 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chang, E., and Pinegar, M.. “A Fundamental Study of the Seasonal Risk-Return Relationship: A Note.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1988), 1035–1039.Google Scholar
Chen, N.; Roll, R.; and Ross, S.. “Economic Forces and the Stock Market.” Journal of Business, 59 (1986), 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. “Efficient Capital Markets: II.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1991), 1575–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E., and French, K.. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 47 (1992), 427–465.Google Scholar
Fama, E., and MacBeth, J.. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (1973), 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakonishok, J., and Shapiro, A.. “Stock Returns, Beta, Variance and Size: An Empirical Analysis.” Financial Analysts Journal, 40 (1984), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakonishok, J., and Shapiro, A.. “Systematic Risk, Total Risk and Size as Determinants of Stock Market Returns.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 10 (1986), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinganum, M. “A New Empirical Perspective on the CAPM.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16 (1981), 439–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinganum, M. “The Anomalous Stock Market Behavior of Small Firms in January: Empirical Tests for Tax-Loss Selling Effects.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (1983), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, R., and Ross, S.. “On the Cross-Sectional Relation between Expected Returns and Betas.” Journal of Finance, 49 (1994), 101–121.Google Scholar
Rozeff, M., and Kinney, W.. “Capital Market Seasonally: The Case of Stock Returns.” Journal of Financial Economics, 4 (1976), 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwert, G. “Size and Stock Returns, and other Empirical Regularities.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (1983), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinic, S., and West, R.. “Risk and Return: January vs. the Rest of the Year.” Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (1984), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J. “Betas in Up and Down Markets.” Financial Review, 27 (1992), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar