Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T10:09:17.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Jump-Diffusion Return Models to Measure Differential Information by Firm Size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Greggory A. Brauer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Portfolios of stocks issued by small firms are well known to earn rates of return in excess of those commensurate with their market sensitivities. One common explanation for this phenomenon is that small firm stocks are riskier than large firm stocks because less information is available about the former than about the latter. A necessary condition for such an explanation to be valid is that the information effect not be eliminated by combining the individual stocks into portfolios. This paper uses jump-diffusion return models to gauge the impact of information by firm size. The results show that portfolios of small firm stocks are no more prone to information surprises than are portfolios of large firm stocks. However, portfolios of small firm stocks are found to react more severely than portfolios of large firm stocks when surprises do occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 447 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1986

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Ball, C., and Torous, W.. “A Simplified Jump Process for Common Stock Returns.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 18 (03 1983), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Barry, C., and Brown, S.. “Differential Information and Security Market Equilibrium.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20 (12 1985), 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Barry, C. “Differential Information and the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (07 1984), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Beckers, S. “A Note on Estimating the Parameters of the Diffusion-Jump Model of Stock Returns.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16 (03 1981), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (05/06 1973), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Efron, B.The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia, PA: Soc. for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Kendall, M., and Stuart, A.. The Advanced Theory of Statistics—Volume I. London: Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd. (1969).Google Scholar
[8]Merton, R. “Option Pricing when the Underlying Stock Returns Are Discontinuous.” Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (01/03 1976), 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Press, J. “A Compound Events Model of Security Prices.” Journal of Business, 40 (07 1967), 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Reinganum, M. “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
[11]Reinganum, M. “A Direct Test of Roll's Conjecture on the Firm Size Effect.” Journal of Finance, 37 (03 1982), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Reinganum, M., and Smith, J.. “Investor Preference for Large Firms: New Evidence on Economies of Size.” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 32 (12 1983), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Roll, R. “A Possible Explanation of the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Finance, 26 (09 1981), 879–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar