nach oben

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting

Erschienen in:

01.02.2013 | Original Research

International equity flows, marginal conditional stochastic dominance and diversification

verfasst von: Ephraim Clark, Konstantinos Kassimatis

Erschienen in: Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting | Ausgabe 2/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The weak empirical evidence linking diversification and international equity flows calls into question the diversification paradigm at the international level and the analytical framework it implies. Using the concept of Marginal Conditional Stochastic Dominance (MCSD) to estimate the diversification opportunities, this paper reexamines the role that diversification opportunities play in the determination of international equity flows. It provides strong evidence that when diversification opportunities are measured in terms of MCSD, they are significant determinants of international equity flows. Capital flows into dominant markets and flees markets that are dominated. These results are robust with respect to a range of conventional control variables documented in the outstanding literature.

Vorheriger Artikel Information content of credit ratings in pricing of future earnings

Nächster Artikel Option pricing under non-normality: a comparative analysis

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

For example, third derivatives and higher are equal to zero or do not exist, which rules out prudent and temperant behaviour. For a discussion of prudence and temperance see Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger (2006)

The size of the diversification adjustment can also be calculated (see Clark and Jokung 1999). Shalit and Yitzhaki (2010) show how MCSD rules can be easily applied for portfolio choices.In this paper we are only interested in identifying the diversification opportunities.

Although integration is increasing, diversification benefits may still be sizable. For example, Cheng and Glascock (2005) find that markets in the Greater China Economic Area and not integrated with the Japanese or the US market therefore, there is potential for diversification benefits.

Fernandez-Arias (1996) argues that the effect of equity returns’ second moments on equity flows may be of less significance when a country’s default risk is high.

Clark and Berko (1996) find the opposite relationship for Mexico, i.e. unexpected inflows drive equity prices.

This type of analysis, however, is plagued by the problem that the results are valid only if the chosen market portfolio is efficient.

An exception is Portes and Rey (2005) who find that there is a statistically significant diversification effect in equity flows but it is weak and unstable.

Although most studies find a statistically significant relationship between interest rates and flows, Bekaert et al. (2002) do not find such a relationship when they take into account regime changes brought about by capital flow liberalizations.

The relationship between Eq. 3 and the ACC curves can be found in Clark et al. (2011, pp. 84–85).

This is the basic problem with applying second degree stochastic dominance to create efficient portfolios.

It should be noted that if market A dominates market B which in turn dominates market C, then A also dominates market C; in other words for MCSD binary relations, the transitivity property applies.

For detailed information on the Z test, see Chow (2001).

Each period includes 300 daily observations and ends at the end of each quarter in our sample.

According to Chow (2001), 10 deciles is a good partitioning for our sample size. If we ‘slice’ the distribution in too few segments, there will not be enough segments of the two distributions for a proper comparison. If we ‘slice’ the distribution in too many segments, there will not be enough observations in each segment to make inferences.

It is important to note that the individual moments of the distributions are not considered directly and individually as in mean variance optimization. They are considered collectively through the risk averse utility functions where the trade-offs among the individual moments are translated into preferences.

We remind the reader that in order to increase their utility investors should buy into dominant markets and sell dominated markets. However, it could be the case that investors react only to dominant or dominated markets but not both. Using CSP and CSN allows us to examine this effect.

This period was chosen to balance the number of countries included in the study against the number of observations per country. A longer period would provide data for only a few developed countries. A shorter period would include a few more countries at the expense of available observations.

To classify a country as developed we use the classification of MSCI (as of February 2009). The developed markets in our sample are Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK, and the USA.

If this were not true, return maximizing investors would always invest in assets with lower expected returns.

For example, the Chow statistics for 1996 quarter 1 are estimated from daily return data from the 6th of February 1995 to the 29th of March 1996, i.e. 300 daily returns. Daily returns are used because a lower frequency would include data of several years prior to each date, which may not be relevant. For example, weekly returns to estimate the Chow statistics for 1996 quarter 1 would have to include observations from 1991 to 1996.

Because we use net aggregate flows, the gravity models à la Portes and Rey (2005) that underline the role of geographical proximity as an informational proxy to explain local equity bias cannot be addressed.

The same interval is necessary to make the data compatible. CSP and CSN account for the entire distribution of equity returns while R (or ΔR) represents the first moment of the return distribution.

It should be noted that following Shalit and Yitzhaki (1994), the index proxies for daily changes in individual wealth. In this setting, any monotone transformation of individual wealth is appropriate.

Besides these three variables, Chuhan et al. (1998) also use the secondary market debt prices as a variable capturing domestic economic conditions. This data is not available to us, however, Chuhan et al. (1998) find that a principal component of secondary market debt prices and credit ratings is not significant in explaining equity flows.

As in Chuhan et al. (1998) we also use the first principal component of the real interest rates and US industrial production and the results remain the same.

Credit ratings are available semi-annually. For intermittent quarters, we use the ratings of the previous quarter. To make the series compatible with the linear regression model, we use the logistic transformation of the ranking (Cosset and Roy 1991).

Since we have 49 observations per country and there are 16 countries in our sample, the total number of observations is 784. The use of lagged variables as instruments means that we lose one observation per country so we have a total of 768 observations.

The F-statistic of the Hausman test has a value of 12.13 favouring the fixed effects model at any conventional level of significance. As a robustness test, we also run Eq. 8 using the random effects estimator. In results not reported here but available upon request, the dominance variables remain statistically significant.

SUR estimation uses the OLS residuals to obtain a consistent estimate of the system covariance matrix which however, is not efficient if any of the right hand side variables are endogenous. The use of the instrumental variables presented above sorts out this problem.

In all regressions reported in Table 3 we used both R and ΔR as a proxy for past equity performance and ΔR is always statistically insignificant and does not affect the results. For economy of space we report only the regressions which include R. Those with ΔR are available upon request.

For example, Bohn and Tesar (1996) and Froot et al. (2001) find evidence that investors chase returns, while Brennan and Cao (1997) present a model where due to the information disadvantage that foreign investors have compared to local investors, they tend to buy foreign securities when returns are high and sell when returns are low.

A Hausman endogeneity test verifies that.

While we have established that dominance drives equity flows, we do not draw conclusions with respect to the effect of dominance on equity prices in these markets. To examine if dominance does indeed affect prices in national markets we would have to isolate the effect of international investors from that of domestic investors and to examine if any effect on prices is due to dominance or systematic risk. This is a separate issue which is beyond the scope of this paper.

Adler M, Dumas B (1983) International portfolio choice and corporation finance: a synthesis. J Finance 38:925–984CrossRef

Aggarwal R, Leora K, Wysocki PD (2005) Portfolio preferences of foreign institutional investors. J Bank Finance 29:2919–2946CrossRef

Athayde G, Flores R (1999) A CAPM with higher moments: theory and econometrics. EPGE/FVG, Ensaios Economicos, WP no. 317

Bailey W, Stultz RM (1990) Benefits of international diversification: the case of Pacific Basin stock markets. J Portfolio Manag Summer 18:57–61CrossRef

Bekaert G, Harvey RC, Lumsdaine RL (2002) The dynamics of emerging market equity flows. J Int Money Finance 21:295–350CrossRef

Bekaert G, Hodrick R, Zhang X (2009) International stock return comovements. J Finance 64:2591–2626CrossRef

Black F (1974) International capital market equilibrium with investment barriers. J Financ Econ 1:337–352CrossRef

Bohn H, Tesar LL (1996) U.S. equity investment in foreign markets: portfolio rebalancing or return chasing? Am Econ Rev 86:77–81

Branson W, Henderson D (1985) The specification and influence of asset markets. In: Jones R, Kenen P (eds) Handbook of international economics. North Holland, Amsterdam

Brennan M, Cao HH (1997) International portfolio investment flows. J Finance 52:1851–1880CrossRef

Calvo G, Leiderman L, Reinhart CM (1993) Capital inflows and the real exchange rate appreciation in Latin America: the role of external factors. IMF Staff Papers 40: no. 1

Chan K, Covrig V, Ng L (2005) What determines the domestic bias and home bias? Evidence from mutual fund allocations worldwide. J Finance 60:1495–1534CrossRef

Cheng H, Glascock JL (2005) Dynamic linkages between the greater China economic area stock markets—Mainland China, Hing Kong and Taiwan. Rev Quant Financ Acc 24:343–357CrossRef

Chiou P (2009) Benefits of international diversification with investment constraints: an over-time perspective. J Mult Financ Manag 19:93–110CrossRef

Chiou P, Lee CF (2012) Do investors still benefit from culturally home-biased diversification? An empirical study of China, Hong-Kong and Taiwan. Rev Quant Financ Acc. doi:10.1007/s11156-011-0257-9

Chiou P, Lee A, Chang CC (2009) Do investors still benefit from international diversification with investment constraints? Q Rev Econ Finance 2:448–483CrossRef

Chow V (2001) Marginal conditional stochastic dominance, statistical inference, and measuring portfolio performance. J Financ Res 24:289–307

Chuhan P, Claessens S, Mamingi N (1998) Equity and bond flows to Latin America and Asia: the role of global and country factors. J Dev Econ 55:439–463CrossRef

Clark J, Berko E (1996) Foreign investment fluctuations and emerging market stock returns: the case of Mexico. Federal Reserve Bank of New York no. 9635

Clark E, Jokung O (1999) A note on asset proportions, stochastic dominance and the 50% rule. Manag Sci 45:1724–1727CrossRef

Clark E, Jokung O, Kassimatis K (2011) Making inefficient market indices efficient. Eur J Oper Res 209:83–93CrossRef

Cooper I, Kaplanis E (1994) Home bias in equity portfolios, inflation hedging, and international capital market equilibrium. Rev Fin Stud 7:45–60CrossRef

Cosset JC, Roy J (1991) The determinants of country risk ratings. J Int Bus Stud 22:135–142CrossRef

Coval J, Moskowitz TJ (1999) Home bias at home: local equity preference in domestic portfolios. J Finance 54:2045–2073CrossRef

Didier T, Rigobon R, Schmukler SL (2008) Unexploited gains from international diversification? SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1363885. Accessed 20 Jan 2012

Dittmar R (2002) Nonlinear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and evidence from the cross section of equity returns. J Finance 57:369–403CrossRef

Driessen J, Laeven L (2007) International portfolio diversification benefits: cross-country evidence from a local perspective. J Bank Finance 31:1693–1712CrossRef

Edison H, Warnock FE (2008) Cross-border listings, capital controls, and equity flows to emerging markets. J Int Money Finance 27:1013–1027CrossRef

Eeckhoudt L, Schlesinger H (2006) Putting risk in its proper place. Am Econ Rev 96:280–289CrossRef

Eiling E, Gerard B, De Roon F (2006) International diversification in the euro-zone: the increasing riskiness of industry portfolios. Tilburg University, Working Paper

Engel CM, Rodriguez AP (1993) Tests of mean-variance efficiency of international equity markets. Oxf Econ Pap 45:403–421

Eun C, Huang W, Lai S (2008) International diversification with large- and small-cap stock. J Financ Quant Anal 43:489–523CrossRef

Eun C, Lai S, De Roon F, Zhang Z (2010) International diversification with factor funds. Manag Sci 56:1500–1518CrossRef

Fang H, Lai TY (1997) Co-kurtosis and capital asset pricing. Financ Rev 32:293–305CrossRef

Fernandez-Arias E (1996) The new wave of private capital inflows: push or pull? J Dev Econ 48:389–418CrossRef

French K, Poterba J (1991) Investor diversification and international equity markets. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 81:222–226

Froot K, O’Connell P, Seasholes M (2001) The portfolio flows of international investors. J Financ Econ 59:151–193CrossRef

Graham J, Harvey CM, Huang H (2005) Investor competence, trading frequency and home bias. NBER WP: w11426

Grauer R, Hakansson N (1987) Gains from international diversification: 1968–1985 returns on portfolios of stocks and bonds. J Finance 42:721–741CrossRef

Griffin JM, Nardari F, Stultz R (2004) Are daily cross-border equity flows pushed or pulled? Rev Econ Stat 86:641–657CrossRef

Grubel H (1968) Internationally diversified portfolios: welfare gains and capital flows. Am Econ Rev 58:1299–1314

Harvey RC (1995) The risk exposure of emerging equity markets. World Bank Econ Rev 9:19–50CrossRef

Hunter JE, Coggin TD (1990) An analysis of the diversification benefit from international equity investment. J Portfolio Manag 17:33–36CrossRef

Kraus A, Litzenberger R (1976) Skewness preference and the valuation of risky assets. J Finance 31:1085–1100

Krugman P (1981) Consumption preferences, asset demands, and distribution effects in international financial markets. NBER WP: 651

Leuz C, Lins KV, Warnock FE (2009) Do foreigners invest less in poorly governed firms? Rev Financ Stud 22:3245–3285CrossRef

Levy H, Sarnat M (1970) International diversification of investment portfolios. Am Econ Rev 50:668–675

Mandelbrot B (1963) The variation of certain speculative prices. J Bus 36:394–419CrossRef

Phengpis C, Swanson PE (2011) Optimization, cointegration and diversification gains from international portfolios: an out-of-sample analysis. Rev Quant Financ Acc 36:269–286CrossRef

Portes R, Rey H (2005) The determinants of cross border equity flows. J Int Econ 65:269–296CrossRef

Post T, Van Vliet P, Levy H (2008) Risk aversion and skewness preference. J Bank Finance 32:1178–1187CrossRef

Sercu P (1980) A generalization of the international asset pricing model. Finance 1:91–135

Shalit H, Yitzhaki S (1994) Marginal conditional stochastic dominance. Manag Sci 40:670–684CrossRef

Shalit H, Yitzhaki S (2010) How does beta explain stochastic dominance efficiency? Rev Quant Financ Acc 40:670–684

So R, Tse Y (2001) A note on international portfolio diversification with short selling. Rev Quant Financ Acc 16:311–321CrossRef

Solnik B (1974) Why not diversify internationally rather than domestically? Financ Anal J 30:48–54CrossRef

Stoline M, Ury HK (1979) Tables of the studentized maximum modulus distribution and an application to multiple comparisons among means. Technometrics 21:87–93CrossRef

Stultz R (1981) On the effects of barriers to international investment. J Finance 36:923–934CrossRef

Tesar L, Werner IM (1995) Home bias and high turnover. J Int Money Finance 14:467–492CrossRef

Uppal R (1993) A general equilibrium model of international portfolio choice. J Finance 48:529–553CrossRef

Van Nieuwerburgh S, Veldkamp L (2009a) Information acquisition and under-diversification. NYU WP: 2451/26030

Van Nieuwerburgh S, Veldkamp L (2009b) Information immobility and the home bias puzzle. J Finance 64:1187–1215CrossRef

Yitzhaki S, Mayshar M (2002) Characterizing efficient portfolios. SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=297899. Accessed 20 Jan 2012

You L, Daigler R (2010) Is international diversification really beneficial? J Bank Finance 34:163–173CrossRef

Titel: International equity flows, marginal conditional stochastic dominance and diversification
verfasst von: Ephraim Clark
Konstantinos Kassimatis
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting / Ausgabe 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0924-865X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7179
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-012-0277-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2013

Option pricing under non-normality: a comparative analysis

How crosslisting affects merger and acquisition activity

Do investors still benefit from culturally home-biased diversification? An empirical study of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

Effects of the Boxing Day tsunami on the world capital markets

Effect of mandatory pro forma earnings disclosure on the relation between CEO share bonuses and firm performance

Returns transmission, value at risk, and diversification benefits in international REITs: evidence from the financial crisis