Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:16:35.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Market Risk Really Explain the Size Effect?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Narasimhan Jegadeesh
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the claim in recent papers that precisely estimated betas explain the cross-sectional differences in expected returns across size-based portfolios. In these studies, the correlations between firm size and betas across the test portfolios are close to one in magnitude, yielding potentially spurious inferences. This paper shows that when the test portfolios are constructed so that the correlations between firm size and beta are small, the betas explain virtually none of the cross-sectional differences in portfolio returns.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 1992, pp. 337 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1992

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

Banz, R. “The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks.” Journal of Financial Economics, 9 (03 1981), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, M. E. “Betas and Their Regression Tendencies.” Journal of Finance, 10 (06 1975), 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, F. “Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing.” Journal of Business, 45 (07 1972), 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K. C., and Chen, N.. “An Unconditional Asset Pricing Test and the Role of Firm Size as an Instrumental Variable for Risk.” Journal of Finance, 43 (06 1988), 309–325.Google Scholar
Chan, K. C.; Chen, N.; and Hseih, D.. “An Exploratory Investigation of the Firm Size Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 14 (09 1985), 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, N.; Roll, R.; and Ross, S.. “Economic Forces and the Stock Market.” Journal of Business, 56 (07 1986), 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimson, E. “Risk Measurement when Shares are Subject to Infrequent Trading.” Journal of Financial Economics, 7 (06 1979), 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F., and French, K.. “Is There a Size Effect in Expected Returns?” Working Paper, Univ. of Chicago (03 1991).Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and French, K.. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, (forthcoming, 1992).Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and MacBeth, J. D.. “Risk Return and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (05/06 1973), 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handa, P.; Kothari, S. P.; and Wasley, C.. “The Relation between Return Interval and Betas: Implications for the Size Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 23 (06 1989), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lintner, J. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 47 (02 1965), 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longstaff, F. A. “Temporal Aggregation and the Continuous-Time Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Journal of Finance, 44 (09 1989), 871–887.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S.Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill (1977).Google Scholar
Reinganum, M. R. “Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing: Empirical Anomalies Based on Earnings Yields and Market Values.” Journal of Financial Economics, 9 (03 1981), 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholes, M., and Williams, J.. “Estimating Betas from Non-Syncronous Data.” Journal of Financial Economics, 5 (12 1977), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, W. F. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, 19 (09 1964), 425–442.Google Scholar