Firm’s Risk-Return Association Facets and Prospect Theory Findings—An Emerging versus Developed Country Context

Abstract

A risk-return association under normal market conditions can be conventional positive (risk-averse) or "paradoxical" negative (risk seeking). This study has the objective to investigate whether such an association is stable across market trends (i.e., bull and bear) and for overall, industry-classified and partitions sub-samples after controlling for a firm's age, size, leverage and liquidity using operating performance risk-return measures. In total, this study analyses 2666 firms (1199 firms from 15 developed countries and 1467 firms from 12 emerging countries) for the period of 1999-2015. Results show that in the overall and bull sub-periods, firms across countries are showing conventional positive (superior firms) and "paradoxical" negative (poor firms) in most cases. However, in the bear sub-periods all firms from emerging countries are risk seeking in order to maintain their position in the pecking order.Empirical literature associates managers' risk behavior with assumptions of rational behavior, outcome weighing and utility maximization. Financial theory also posits that risk-averse behavior manifests when low risk is associated with low return, as well as when high risk is rewarded by high return (Fisher and Hall 1969). This risk-averse outlook also assumes that for each strategic alternative, firms and managers would choose the alternative which maximizes utility (Schoemaker 1982). Aaker and Jacobson (1987) find support for a positive association between performance and both systematic and unsystematic risk, when risk is defined using accounting data. A number of other studies have also found support for a positive risk-return relationship (Bettis 1981).To provide a theoretical lens to explain the negative association between risk and return, scholars have drawn motivation from prospect theory (Fiegenbaum and Thomas 1988;Kahneman and Tversky 1979) and behavioral theory of the firm (Bromiley 1991). Under the behavioral theory of the firm, managers undertake more risk when performance is below aspiration, and they take low risk when performance is above aspirations. Due to the contemporaneous association between risk-taking and low performance, this relationship could be negative. This is due to lower performance and higher risk in cross-sectional accounting data, or lagging effects of risk and performance would continue in the short-term in longitudinal accounting data. On the other hand, prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979) studies argue that managers in low performing firms face negatively framed prospects and are thus more likely to undertake high risk. In contrast, managers in high-performing firms face positively framed prospects and take low risk. Both of these results would cause negative correlation between high performance and low risk. Thus, prospect theory and behavioral theory of the firm provide possible explanations for the negative risk-return relationships.The research hypotheses in these studies emphasizes on manager's and/or firm's attainment of above (below) returns in compariso...

Does prospect theory explain Bowman's paradox in Asian emerging markets?

“…To establish the convergent validity of our tests, we employed two most commonly used two proxies, i.e. return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) (Andersen, 2008; Gupta and Pathak, 2018; Holder et al. , 2016; Jegers, 1991).…”

“…Among this, firm size and financial leverage are the most significant factors that affect businesses across various countries (Arrfelt et al. , 2018; Gupta and Pathak, 2018). For firm size (FSize), we use the natural logarithm of firm sales (Aldrich, 1999; Brick et al.…”

The analysis of debt levels in public firms: an international evidence

“…In addition to this, we divide the entire study period in crisis and non-crisis subperiods based on existing literature in finance (DasGupta, 2017a, b;Ranajee et al, 2018;Gupta and Pathak, 2018). We do such bifurcation of the study period in order to assess the impact of worldwide economic turbulence on cross-country dividend payouts levels and further to assess the predictive consistency of determinants though periods of stability and turbulence.…”

Does Working Capital Management Influence Operating and Market Risk of Firms?

“…By using the local linear estimator, the study demonstrated that lower market values are related to higher operational inefficiencies, whereas higher market values are associated with higher operating efficiencies. Gupta and Pathak (2018) stated that under normal market conditions, a risk-return relationship might be conventionally positive (risk-averse) or "paradoxically" negative (risk seeking). Xing and Yu (2018) argued that financial crises during the previous few decades have revealed the enormous impact of market structural breaks on firms' lending behavior.…”