We compare major factor models and find that the Stambaugh and Yuan (2016) 4-factor model is the overall winner in the time-series domain. The Hou, Xue, and Zhang (2015) q-factor model takes second place and the Fama and French (2015) 5-factor model and the Barillas and Shanken (2018) 6-factor model jointly take third place. The pairwise cross-sectional R2 and the multiple model comparison tests show that the Hou et al. (2015) q-factor model, the Fama and French (2015) 5-factor and 4-factor models, and the Barillas and Shanken (2018) 6-factor model take equal first place in the horse race.

We investigate the relationship between default risk and REIT stock returns. A default risk long-short investment strategy generates a return of 15% per annum. We also evaluate a large number of potential explanations for the negative relationship between default risk and subsequent stock returns. We do not find robust evidence that the default risk premium can be explained by firm size, book-to-market equity, asset growth and idiosyncratic volatility. However, CAPM beta shows some promise in explaining the default risk premium. Our results shed further light on the role of default risk in investment in REITs.

Empirical research has documented a negative relationship between distress risk and stock returns. This negative risk–return trade‐off, known as the distress puzzle, poses a challenge to asset pricing models. In this study, we provide a new explanation of the distress puzzle by considering the effect of arbitrage asymmetry. We find that the negative distress risk–return relation is stronger in stocks that have higher limits of arbitrage. The investors are virtually unable to short sell mispriced high distress risk stocks due to the low supply of lendable stocks from institutions and that arbitrage is costly. In addition, we show that the limits of arbitrage effect is distinct from liquidity effect in explaining the distress puzzle.

No abstract

This paper explores the impact of product market competition on the positive relation between labor mobility (LM) and future returns. We develop a production-based model and formalize the intuition that low exposure to systematic risk in a concentrated industry limits LM’s amplifying effect on operating leverage. Therefore, the model predicts a stronger positive relation between LM and expected returns for firms in competitive industries. Consistent with the model’s prediction, we empirically find that LM predicts returns only among firms in competitive industries. This evidence suggests that the intensity of competition in firms’ product market potentially drives the positive LM-return relation.