The Journal of Finance

Connected Stocks

Published: 02/20/2014   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12149

MIGUEL ANTÓN, CHRISTOPHER POLK

We connect stocks through their common active mutual fund owners. We show that the degree of shared ownership forecasts cross‐sectional variation in return correlation, controlling for exposure to systematic return factors, style and sector similarity, and many other pair characteristics. We argue that shared ownership causes this excess comovement based on evidence from a natural experiment—the 2003 mutual fund trading scandal. These results motivate a novel cross‐stock‐reversal trading strategy exploiting information contained in ownership connections. We show that long‐short hedge fund index returns covary negatively with this strategy, suggesting these funds may exacerbate this excess comovement.

Putting the Price in Asset Pricing

Published: 10/09/2024   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.13391

THUMMIM CHO, CHRISTOPHER POLK

We propose a novel way to estimate a portfolio's abnormal price, the percentage gap between price and the present value of dividends computed with a chosen asset pricing model. Our method, based on a novel identity, resembles the time‐series estimator of abnormal returns, avoids the issues in alternative approaches, and clarifies the role of risk and mispricing in long‐horizon returns. We apply our techniques to study the cross‐section of price levels relative to the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and find that a single characteristic, adjusted value, provides a parsimonious model of CAPM‐implied abnormal price.

The Diversification Discount: Cash Flows Versus Returns

Published: 12/17/2002   |   DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00386

Owen A. Lamont, Christopher Polk

Diversified firms have different values from comparable portfolios of single‐segment firms. These value differences must be due to differences in either future cash flows or future returns. Expected security returns on diversified firms vary systematically with relative value. Discount firms have significantly higher subsequent returns than premium firms. Slightly more than half of the cross‐sectional variation in excess values is due to variation in expected future cash flows, with the remainder due to variation in expected future returns and to covariation between cash flows and returns.

The Value Spread

Published: 03/21/2003   |   DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.00539

Randolph B. Cohen, Christopher Polk, Tuomo Vuolteenaho

We decompose the cross‐sectional variance of firms' book‐to‐market ratios using both a long U.S. panel and a shorter international panel. In contrast to typical aggregate time‐series results, transitory cross‐sectional variation in expected 15‐year stock returns causes only a relatively small fraction (20 to 25 percent) of the total cross‐sectional variance. The remaining dispersion can be explained by expected 15‐year profitability and persistence of valuation levels. Furthermore, this fraction appears stable across time and across types of stocks. We also show that the expected return on value‐minus‐growth strategies is atypically high at times when their spread in book‐to‐market ratios is wide.

The Price Is (Almost) Right

Published: 11/25/2009   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01516.x

RANDOLPH B. COHEN, CHRISTOPHER POLK, TUOMO VUOLTEENAHO

Most previous research tests market efficiency using average abnormal trading profits on dynamic trading strategies, and typically rejects the joint hypothesis of market efficiency and an asset pricing model. In contrast, we adopt the perspective of a buy‐and‐hold investor and examine stock price levels. For such an investor, the price level is more relevant than the short‐horizon expected return, and betas of cash flow fundamentals are more important than high‐frequency stock return betas. Our cross‐sectional tests suggest that there exist specifications in which differences in relative price levels of individual stocks can be largely explained by their fundamental betas.