This paper develops a multifactor model for explaining the difference in average returns for the German stock market in the period between July 1990 and June 2007. The methodology of Fama and French (1993) is adopted to determine possible common risk factors in that market. Despite the enormous and strong stock markets movements and the high volatility during that period, the three factors RM-RF, SMB and HML seem to be able to capture cross-sectional variation in average returns for portfolios formed on various sorting criteria based on publicly available financial data.
In addition, the analysis shows a negative (risk?) premium for small size stocks, which is a surprising result since it contradicts previous studies for the German, but also international markets. For stocks with a high book-to-market value, a strong positive premium is found. This value effect is consistent over time and statistically significant.
Positive premiums seem to exist for high E/P and C/P stocks as well. These market anomalies show that returns are indeed predictable in the German market over long time horizons. High BM, E/P and C/P stocks do outperform stocks with low ratios in these categories significantly and consistent over time.
However, the evidence in this analysis highlights that the common explanation in rational asset-pricing models of an outperformance due to some economic risk factors that are proxied by HML and SMB must be strongly questioned. Portfolios consisting of value stocks outperform growth portfolios in all possible states of the stock market. This evidence is contradictory to the ‘marginal value of wealth’ assumption in the rational asset pricing models presented. Additionally, there is a January effect in stock returns which cannot be captured by a risk-based, rational asset pricing model.
Thus, the evidence suggests that it is in fact investor irrationality which is causing differences in average returns across stocks. RM-RF, SMB and HML can be described as common factors helping to explain return differences, but it is very likely that it is not underlying economic risk, but investor behavior which is causing the presented market anomalies and return predictability.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Efficient Market Theory and Asset Pricing Models
2.1 The Efficient Market Hypothesis
2.2 The Joint Hypothesis Problem
2.3 Asset Pricing Models - Literature Review
2.4 Arbitrage Pricing Theory
2.5 The Intertemporal CAPM
2.6 Finding the Factors
2.7 The Fama and French Three-Factor Model
3 Behavioral Explanations of Market Anomalies
3.1 The Limits to Arbitrage
3.2 Investor’s Psychology
3.3 Empirical Evidence on Behavioral Phenomena
3.4 Behavioral Models
4 Empirics - The Fama-French Three-Factor Model for the German Market
4.1 Purpose of the Empirical Study
4.2 Testing Approach
4.3 Data and Methodology
4.4 The 16 Dependent Portfolios
4.5 The Common Risk Factors: RM-RF, SMB and HML
4.6 Results for the Time Series Regression
4.7 Analysis of the Alpha Constant
4.8 Testing for E/P and C/P
4.9 Risk in Value Strategies
4.10 Testing for Seasonality in Returns
5 Risk or Irrationality?
5.1 Rational Interpretations of the Three-Factor model
5.2 Behavioral Interpretations of the Three-Factor Model
6 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This academic paper investigates whether the Fama-French three-factor asset pricing model can effectively explain return patterns in the German stock market from 1990 to 2007, and assesses whether market anomalies are driven by risk or investor irrationality.
- Empirical verification of the Fama-French three-factor model in the German market.
- Examination of market anomalies, including the value-growth effect and size effect.
- Analysis of the potential drivers of return predictability, contrasting risk-based and behavioral explanations.
- Investigation of additional anomalies such as Earnings-to-Price (E/P), Cash Flow-to-Price (C/P) ratios, and seasonal effects.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
Modern academic thinking and theory about asset pricing can be divided into two broad categories. The first one bases asset pricing on rational factor models such as the traditional Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) or expanded versions of it such as the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT). Basic assumptions of these models are that markets are efficient and that investors are rational. One of the most influential models has been the Fama-French (1993) three factor model, which extends the CAPM and explains the cross-sectional variation in asset prices by their exposure to three common risk factors proxying for some underlying economic variables. The risk factors are the market premium, size measured by a firm’s market capitalization and the ratio of a company’s book value to its market value.
The second category of modern finance theory focuses on investor’s psychology and non-rational explanations for asset pricing and differences in stock returns. This new field, called behavioral finance, came up in the 1990s as an alternative to the traditional, risk-based asset pricing models. Behavioral finance models allow for investor irrationality and limits to arbitrage, two important assumptions in that field to explain market anomalies.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Outlines the research categories regarding asset pricing models (rational vs. behavioral) and introduces the focus of the study on the German market.
2 The Efficient Market Theory and Asset Pricing Models: Reviews fundamental financial theories including EMH, CAPM, APT, and the development of the Fama-French three-factor model.
3 Behavioral Explanations of Market Anomalies: Explores psychological biases, limits to arbitrage, and how investor behavior challenges traditional rational pricing models.
4 Empirics - The Fama-French Three-Factor Model for the German Market: Details the study's empirical methodology, portfolio construction, and the regression analysis of risk factors in the German stock market.
5 Risk or Irrationality?: Interprets the empirical results, debating whether observed anomalies represent compensation for economic risk or evidence of investor irrationality.
6 Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, concluding that while the three-factor model is empirically useful, market anomalies are more likely driven by investor behavior than traditional risk factors.
Keywords
Fama-French, German Stock Market, Asset Pricing, Behavioral Finance, Market Anomalies, Capital Asset Pricing Model, Efficient Market Hypothesis, Risk Factors, Value Effect, Size Effect, Return Predictability, Arbitrage, Investor Psychology, Time Series Regression, Beta.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The paper examines the applicability of the Fama-French three-factor model in the German stock market to determine if it can explain cross-sectional variations in returns during the 1990–2007 period.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study integrates standard financial theory (rational asset pricing) with behavioral finance to investigate whether returns are predictable due to risk-based factors or psychological investor biases.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to test the validity of the Fama-French model in Germany and to identify whether market anomalies arise from undiversifiable risk or from non-rational investor behavior.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses quantitative time-series regression analysis to test risk factors, alongside a non-parametric approach to compare value versus growth stock performance under different market conditions.
What does the main part of the paper address?
The main section focuses on empirical testing: constructing 16 portfolios based on size and book-to-market ratios, running regressions, and analyzing the significance of alpha constants and seasonal effects like the January effect.
Which key concepts characterize this paper?
Key concepts include market efficiency, the three-factor model (Market, SMB, HML), limits to arbitrage, investor overconfidence, and the distinction between rational risk-based pricing and behavioral anomalies.
How does the German market results compare to the US market?
While the three-factor model provides explanatory power in both markets, the author finds that the German market results often diverge from US findings, particularly regarding the consistency of the size effect.
What is the author's conclusion regarding value strategies?
The author concludes that value strategies consistently outperform growth strategies in the German market and that this outperformance does not appear to be compensation for higher risk, supporting a behavioral explanation.
- Quote paper
- Daniel Bathe (Author), 2007, Common risk factors in the German stock market , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/90208
