The Capital Asset Pricing Model assumes a relationship between stock ‘s expected return and hazard. However, recent surveies have shown that other factors besides have a important consequence on returns like past returns, book to market ratio, price-earnings ratio, dividend output, purchase, and size of the house.
In this paper I study the relationship between house size and returns of a house. Size consequence can be described as the phenomenon by which smaller houses have higher risk-adjusted returns than larger houses. I foremost present an overview of the paper ‘Does Size Really Matter ” by Jonathan B. Berk ( 1997 ) which is a sum-up of the findings in Berk ( 1995a ) . This is followed by a critical appraisal of this paper taking into consideration, the positions of other writers.
Banz ( 1981 ) was the first one to analyze the consequence of the size of the house on its returns. Ever since, it has remained an mystery. Many surveies about the size consequence followed after Banz ( 1981 ) like Fama and French ( 1992 ) , Berk ( 1995 ) , Daniel and Titman ( 1997 ) . Banz ( 1981 ) findings show that the size of a house and the returns from its stock are reciprocally related. Empirically, though his findings were accurate, he did non give a theoretical account for this relationship. Fama and French ( 1992 ) find that size and the ratio of book equity and market equity explains the cross-section of stock returns. Daniel and Titman ( 1997 ) besides showed that it is features of the house that determine expected returns.
I now summarize the paper ‘Does Size Really Matter ‘ by Jonathan B. Berk.
Berk Begins by distinguishing between house size and market value of common equity. By house size he means, size of the house which is the house ‘s value of current assets, while market value of the house is the discounted value of the house ‘s expected hard currency flows. The logarithm of the market value is a step of the house ‘s price reduction rate. ( Berk ( 1995 ) ) The price reduction rate is the investor ‘s appraisal of hazard and reflects the hazard free rate and the hazard premium rate.
The correlativity between market value and the house size are positive, i.e. big houses are likely to bring forth larger hard currency flows. Thus market value is besides a step of house size, but size of the house is non the lone characteristic measured by market value.
In order to explicate the relationship between market value of a house and its returns, Berk illustrates a thought experiment affecting an economic system in which all houses are of the same size, i.e. they have the same value of current assets. He assumes that expected hard currency flows step house size absolutely. Since all houses are assumed to hold the same size and expected hard currency flows are assumed to mensurate steadfast size absolutely, hence all houses have the same expected hard currency flows. This is non same as holding the same hard currency flows. This is where price reduction rates come into image ; some houses ‘ hard currency flows are riskier than the other. Higher price reduction rate is attached to a riskier houses ‘ hard currency flow and therefore the discounted value of a riskier house is lower than the discounted value of a less hazardous houses ‘ hard currency flows. Firm ‘s expected return is equal to its expected hard currency flows divided by its market value. Since in this experiment, it is assumed that all the houses have the same expected hard currency flows, this means that hazardous houses with low market value will hold high expected returns and frailty versa. Thus, even though Berk assumed that all houses have the same size, he found market value and return to be reciprocally related. Berk ( 1995 ) officially derives this theoretical relationship between market value and returns.
Next he initiates a similar idea experiment to demo that the relationship between market value and expected return does non depend on the being of a relation between hazard and return. He shows that the lone status under which the market value and returns of a stock will non be reciprocally related is if all assets have the same monetary value i.e. hazard neutrality. He so takes to existent markets where the houses have different sizes and sorts these houses into portfolios based on size. He shows that the expected return of the lower market value portfolio exceeds the expected return of the higher market value portfolio.
Berk so investigates the relationship between expected returns and the ratio of expected hard currency flows to market value. This ratio is besides called expected return and hence is tautologically absolutely correlated with expected return. But expected hard currency flows are unobservable and hence can non be studied. Berk does a similar survey though, utilizing book value of equity. Book value of equity steps depreciated past investing and can be used as a placeholder for the expected hard currency flows. Thus the ratio of book equity to market value should be a better step of expected return than market equity entirely.
Berk so surveies the relationship between market value and returns when there is an reverse relationship between house size and return. He shows that in this instance, there is an even stronger reverse relation between market value and return.
After holding studied the relationship between house size as measured by market value and returns, Berk answers two inquiries
Are other steadfast size steps related to return?
He surveies the relationship between other steps of house size like the book value of assets and the entire value of one-year gross revenues and returns utilizing NYSE stocks from 1967 to 1987. The attack used is to screen stocks into portfolios based on market value and so based on Book value of assets and Gross saless. Tax returns of the portfolios sorted on the footing of market value monotonically increase as the mean market value of the portfolio decreases. A clear form is non observed when the stocks are sorted into portfolios based on the other two steps, but there is consistence with the fact that the smallest portfolio has a higher return than the largest portfolio. The empirical survey done in Berk ( 1995a ) shows a important relationship between market value and returns but shows no important relationship when the other steps of house size are used.
What happens to market value with steadfast size controlled?
Berk conducts a 2nd trial and compares houses of similar sizes to analyze the relation between market value and return within each class. He finds that in every instance, lower market value portfolios are associated with higher returns. He besides finds that the relation between market value and return is as strong within houses of similar sizes as it is in the whole economic system. He besides shows that if the order of the kinds is reversed, i.e. if the houses are foremost sorted on the footing of market value, and so on the footing of the size steps, so the consequences differ: house size is seen to be positively related to mean returns. This is because, the larger the house in the same market value class, the higher the price reduction rate and hence higher the mean return
Berk so discusses two deductions for portfolio directors.
- Because the size consequence is theoretically predicted, it should be.
- Although the relationship between market value and return exist, the thought that somehow this extra return comes as “ free tiffin ” is misguided. ”
Berk concludes by stating that the size mystery arises from the step of house size that is used. Size consequence is clearly important when market value of common equity is used as a step of house size. This is because market value of equity is a step of the house ‘s price reduction rate as good. Other steadfast size steps do non demo a important relationship between house size and return.
In the undermentioned paragraphs, I present a critical appraisal of the paper ‘Does size truly matter ‘ by Jonathan B. Berk on the footing of surveies done by other writers.
As we have seen in the old subdivision, Berk ( 1997 ) surveies the relationship between market value and expected returns and subsequently goes on to look into the relationship between ratio of expected hard currency flows to market value and expected returns. Acknowledging that expected hard currency flows are unobservable, he introduces the ratio of book equity to market equity as a placeholder for ratio of expected hard currency flows to market value. Another placeholder he uses for expected hard currency flows is Gross saless. Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) found some restriction in Berk ‘s trials. First restriction that they addressed was that of the placeholder used by Berk for expected hard currency flows. Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) suggest that accomplished hard currency flows are a better and more direct placeholder than physical steps like book value of assets and gross revenues volume. Second, they identify that Berk did non demo grounds that low market value stocks are riskier than high market value stocks. Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) expanded Berks trials by presenting steps of hard currency flow hazard and screening that “ companies with similar hard currency flows, the riskier hard currency flows imply lower market values and higher returns. ” Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) point out that Berk did non demo it straight in his 1995 or 1997 documents. Berk reversed the order of the kinds, i.e. he foremost sorted on the footing of market value and so on the footing of the step of firm-size – book value and Gross saless and found that these steps were positively related to returns. Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) besides reversed the order of the kinds but found that their consequences do non back up Berk ‘s account for the positive relationship between the two.
Garza- Gomez ( 2001 ) besides addresses issues in the plants of Berk ( 1997 ) and Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) . He points out that these surveies did non analyze the book value to market value premium. Berk assumes that book value of equity is an appropriate placeholder of expected hard currency flows and that it is uncorrelated with returns. Garza-Gomez ( 2001 ) suggests that these strong premises affected the decision. He argues that BVE reflects current value of a company but ignores future public presentation and hence is an imperfect placeholder for expected hard currency flows. Garza- Gomez ( 2001 ) takes the position of discounted hard currency flow theoretical account and investigates “ whether the correlativity between market value and hazard explained in Berk ( 1995 ) histories for the return premium observed in investing schemes based on BV/MV. ” ( Garza-Gomez 2001 )
Okada ( 2007 ) besides surveies the size consequence utilizing the same attack as Berk ( 1997 ) but takes the value consequence into consideration. It was confirmed that “ size consequence could be as a pure house size consequence, non as the market capitalisation consequence claimed by Berk ( 1997 ) ”
To analyze the relationship between market value, BVA, Gross saless and return, Berk ( 1997 ) sorts stocks into portfolios based on these steps. But harmonizing to Garza-Gomez et Al ( 1998 ) , Berk did non present grounds on the extent to which his screening process succeeded in commanding for physical size. Dijk ( 2007 ) reviews the research on the size consequence in stock returns and assesses the most outstanding unfavorable judgments. One of the reviews mentioned was ‘pitfalls of screening methodological analysiss. ‘ “ Lo and McKinlay ( 1990 ) examine the extent to which the usage of attribute-sorted portfolios in the empirical plus pricing literature influences classical statistical illation Although screening stocks into portfolios reduces the measuring mistake and enhances the power of the trials, grouping securities by some characteristic that is through empirical observation motivated can take to wrong rejections of the void hypothesis that the plus pricing theoretical account is true. ” Dijk ( 2007 )
In this paper, I have studied the size consequence in general, with accent on Berk ( 1997 ) I have summarized his paper “ Does Size Really Matter ” and given an overview of the reviews that have been discussed by assorted other writers.
Banz 1981 concluded “ It is non known whether size per Se is responsible for the consequence or whether size is merely a placeholder for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size ” Many empirical and theoretical surveies have been done on the subject. While theoretical surveies point out that no account exists on why little houses earn higher, empiricists point out the clear empirical grounds. The paper that we have studied, Berk ( 1997 ) concluded that the size consequence arises from the step of house size used.
- Banz, R.W. ( 1981 ) The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 9 pp. 3-18.
- Berk, J.B. ( 1995 ) A Critique of Size-Related Anomalies. Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 8 pp. 275-286.
- Berk, J.B. ( 1996 ) An Empirical Re-examination of the Relation between Firm Size and Return, University of Washington.
- Berk, J.B. ( 1997 ) Does Size Really Matter. Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 53, No. 5 pp. 12-18
- Berk, J.B. ( 2000 ) Screening Out Sorts. Journal of Finance, Vol. 55 pp. 407-427.
- Daniel, K. and Titman, S. ( 1997 ) Characteristics or Covariances, Journal of Portfolio Management, pp. 24-33.
- Daniel, K. and Titman, S. ( 1999 ) Screening out “ Screening out Kinds ” .
- Dijk, M. A. ( 2007 ) The Size Effect Paradox. RSM Erasmus University
- Fama, E.F. , and K.R. Gallic, ( 1992 ) The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, Vol. 47 pp. 427-465.
- Garza-Gomez, X. , Hodoshima, J. , and Kunimura, M. ( 1998 ) Does Size Really Matter in Japan? Fiscal Analysts Journal, Vol. 54, no. 6 pp. 22-34.
- Garza-Gomez, X. ( 2001 ) The Information Content of the Book-to-Market Ratio.
- Fiscal Analysts Journal, Vol. 57, No. 6 pp. 78-95
- Moore, C. Unraveling The Size Effect, Elon College.
- Okada, K. ( 2006 ) Size Effect and Firm Size – New relationship with the value consequence. Security Analysts Journal Vol. 44 No. 7