The Journal of Finance

Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns

Published: 04/18/2012   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03806.x

KENT DANIEL, SHERIDAN TITMAN

Firm sizes and book‐to‐market ratios are both highly correlated with the average returns of common stocks. Fama and French (1993) argue that the association between these characteristics and returns arise because the characteristics are proxies for nondiversifiable factor risk. In contrast, the evidence in this article indicates that the return premia on small capitalization and high book‐to‐market stocks does not arise because of the comovements of these stocks with pervasive factors. It is the characteristics rather than the covariance structure of returns that appear to explain the cross‐sectional variation in stock returns.

Market Reactions to Tangible and Intangible Information

Published: 08/03/2006   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00884.x

KENT DANIEL, SHERIDAN TITMAN

The book‐to‐market effect is often interpreted as evidence of high expected returns on stocks of “distressed” firms with poor past performance. We dispute this interpretation. We find that while a stock's future return is unrelated to the firm's past accounting‐based performance, it is strongly negatively related to the “intangible” return, the component of its past return that is orthogonal to the firm's past performance. Indeed, the book‐to‐market ratio forecasts returns because it is a good proxy for the intangible return. Also, a composite equity issuance measure, which is related to intangible returns, independently forecasts returns.

Investor Psychology and Security Market Under‐ and Overreactions

Published: 12/17/2002   |   DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00077

Kent Daniel, David Hirshleifer, Avanidhar Subrahmanyam

We propose a theory of securities market under‐ and overreactions based on two well‐known psychological biases: investor overconfidence about the precision of private information; and biased self‐attribution, which causes asymmetric shifts in investors' confidence as a function of their investment outcomes. We show that overconfidence implies negative long‐lag autocorrelations, excess volatility, and, when managerial actions are correlated with stock mispricing, public‐event‐based return predictability. Biased self‐attribution adds positive short‐lag autocorrelations (“momentum”), short‐run earnings “drift,” but negative correlation between future returns and long‐term past stock market and accounting performance. The theory also offers several untested implications and implications for corporate financial policy.

Monetary Policy and Reaching for Income

Published: 02/01/2021   |   DOI: 10.1111/jofi.13004

KENT DANIEL, LORENZO GARLAPPI, KAIRONG XIAO

Using data on individual portfolio holdings and on mutual fund flows, we find that low interest rates lead to significantly higher demand for income‐generating assets such as high‐dividend stocks and high‐yield bonds. We argue that this “reaching‐for‐income” phenomenon is driven by investors who follow the “living off income” rule‐of‐thumb. Our empirical analysis shows that this preference for current income affects both household portfolio choices and the prices of income‐generating assets. In addition, we explore the implications of reaching for income for capital allocation and the effectiveness of monetary policy.

Overconfidence, Arbitrage, and Equilibrium Asset Pricing

Published: 12/17/2002   |   DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00350

Kent D. Daniel, David Hirshleifer, Avanidhar Subrahmanyam

This paper offers a model in which asset prices reflect both covariance risk and misperceptions of firms' prospects, and in which arbitrageurs trade against mispricing. In equilibrium, expected returns are linearly related to both risk and mispricing measures (e.g., fundamental/price ratios). With many securities, mispricing of idiosyncratic value components diminishes but systematic mispricing does not. The theory offers untested empirical implications about volume, volatility, fundamental/price ratios, and mean returns, and is consistent with several empirical findings. These include the ability of fundamental/price ratios and market value to forecast returns, and the domination of beta by these variables in some studies.

Explaining the Cross‐Section of Stock Returns in Japan: Factors or Characteristics?

Published: 12/17/2002   |   DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00344

Kent Daniel, Sheridan Titman, K.C. John Wei

Japanese stock returns are even more closely related to their book‐to‐market ratios than are their U.S. counterparts, and thus provide a good setting for testing whether the return premia associated with these characteristics arise because the characteristics are proxies for covariance with priced factors. Our tests, which replicate the Daniel and Titman (1997) tests on a Japanese sample, reject the Fama and French (1993) three‐factor model, but fail to reject the characteristic model.

Measuring Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic‐Based Benchmarks

Published: 04/18/2012   |   DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb02724.x

KENT DANIEL, MARK GRINBLATT, SHERIDAN TITMAN, RUSS WERMERS

This article develops and applies new measures of portfolio performance which use benchmarks based on the characteristics of stocks held by the portfolios that are evaluated. Specifically, the benchmarks are constructed from the returns of 125 passive portfolios that are matched with stocks held in the evaluated portfolio on the basis of the market capitalization, book‐to‐market, and prior‐year return characteristics of those stocks. Based on these benchmarks, “Characteristic Timing” and “Characteristic Selectivity” measures are developed that detect, respectively, whether portfolio managers successfully time their portfolio weightings on these characteristics and whether managers can select stocks that outperform the average stock having the same characteristics. We apply these measures to a new database of mutual fund holdings covering over 2500 equity funds from 1975 to 1994. Our results show that mutual funds, particularly aggressive‐growth funds, exhibit some selectivity ability, but that funds exhibit no characteristic timing ability.