1 / 16

Kate Barraclough, Vanderbilt University Kathleen Walsh, UNSW Geoff Warren, Russell Investment Group

Cost of Capital Estimation: Something Better than the Standard CAPM?. Kate Barraclough, Vanderbilt University Kathleen Walsh, UNSW Geoff Warren, Russell Investment Group. Overview. Introduction Essentially a Horse Race Models and Data Who gets to saddle up? Criteria

avidan
Télécharger la présentation

Kate Barraclough, Vanderbilt University Kathleen Walsh, UNSW Geoff Warren, Russell Investment Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cost of Capital Estimation: Something Better than the Standard CAPM? Kate Barraclough,Vanderbilt University Kathleen Walsh, UNSW Geoff Warren, Russell Investment Group

  2. Overview • Introduction • Essentially a Horse Race • Models and Data • Who gets to saddle up? • Criteria • How do we judge the race? • Results • Who wins the race? • Conclusions • Implications of the race • Where to next?

  3. Introduction • Horse race for practitioners to consider academic models for cost of capital estimation • Highlights measurement error • Multi factor models may never provide a practical alternative • Liquidity adjustment produces a more plausible distribution of cost of capital estimates.

  4. Models and Data • Base Case - Standard CAPM • Adjusted for: • Industry Betas • Thin Trading

  5. Models and Data • Criteria for selection • Acceptability by academics and practitioners • Practicality for implementation • Fama French Three Factor Model (1993) • CAPM + Liquidity • Two Beta CAPM

  6. Models and Data • CAPM + Liquidity Factor • Estimation parallels that for the standard CAPM and 3-factor model, with factor loadings estimated by a multiple regression of stock returns on returns to factor mimicking portfolios • CAPM + Liquidity Premium • the standard CAPM with a liquidity adjustment reflecting the percentile ranking of a stock based on some liquidity measure.

  7. Models and Data

  8. Models and Data • Liquidity Measures

  9. Models and Data • Two Beta CAPM • Asset prices are moved by changes in cash flows and discount rates: • Think about the numerator and denominator in a DCF • Different implications: cash flow losses tend to be ‘permanent’, whereas discount rate movements reorder return profile over time • Assets can have different sensitivities to these two elements • Aligns with ‘cyclical’ versus ‘interest-rate sensitive’ stocks

  10. Models and Data • Campbell & Vuolteenaho propose a neat and intuitive two-beta version of CAPM in their “Bad Beta, Good Beta” paper (AER, 2004) • Decompose return on market into ‘cash flow’ and ‘discount rate’ elements, and estimate beta on each component • Decomposition based on Change in VIX MRPt = 0.0050 - 0.795·CHVIXSQt + εt • Decomposition based on Change in VIX MRPt = 0.0048+ 1.187·CHLTGt + єt

  11. Models and Data • Decomposition based on Change in VIX • Decomposition based on Change in VIX • Estimation of Factor Risk Premiums: Based on VIX Mean(XRIk) = 0.0051 + 0.00155·βVIX(CF)k - 0.00114·βVIX(DR)k + uk • Estimation of Factor Risk Premiums: Based on Long-Term Growth Forecasts Mean(XRIk) = 0.0058 + 0.00541·βLTG(CF)k - 0.00036 ·βLTG(DR)k + uk

  12. Models and Data • Estimation of Factor Risk Premiums: Based on VIX CF% (VIX) = 0.00155 / (0.00155 + 0.00114) = 0.576 DR% (VIX) = 1 - CF%(VIX)) = 0.424 • Estimation of Factor Risk Premiums: Based on LTG CF% (LTG) = 0.00541 / (0.00541 + 0.00036) = 0.938 DR% (LTG) = 1 - CF%(LTG)) = 0.062

  13. Judging Criteria • Plausibility of the estimate distribution • Relation with average return over the subsequent 1 to 5 years • Relation with implied cost of equity estimates • Contrasts with Academic tests • Individual security rather than portfolio • Apply existing models rather than testing new ones • Implemented using market based data • C&V – VIX and I/B/E/S

  14. Results

  15. Results • CAPM+LP emerged as the ‘best’ model • Possible magnitude of measurement error • Thin-trading and beta estimates • CAPM+LP model with Dimson betas (LP based on LCOMB) • Risk premium distribution and measurement error • Contrasting two-beta results as a warning • Lack of strong signals

  16. Conclusions • Fama French Model results in too much estimation error to be considered for individual stock cost of capital • Standard CAPM is good considering all the bad press, but the inclusion of liquidity improves performance • Two Beta CAPM looks promising but both approaches should yield same results so relying on one is suspect • Watch this space for further development of CAPM +LP

More Related