* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Fama EF and French KR (1996) Multifactor explanations of asset
Survey
Document related concepts
Present value wikipedia , lookup
Greeks (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Systemic risk wikipedia , lookup
Private equity secondary market wikipedia , lookup
Modified Dietz method wikipedia , lookup
Financialization wikipedia , lookup
Lattice model (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Investment management wikipedia , lookup
Mark-to-market accounting wikipedia , lookup
Short (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Business valuation wikipedia , lookup
Beta (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Hedge (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Chapter I INTRODUCTION This research gave an overview of the most widely used theories in asset pricing and some more recent developments. The aim of these theories was to determine the fundamental value of an asset. As in the first section there was a close relation between fundamental and market variables and an appropriate return. The main focus of asset pricing theories was to determine this appropriate return. This chapter provides empirical investigations presented in very short, citing the results of the most prominent works. This chapter is divided into following sub sections:1.1 Asset Pricing Model 1.2 Single Factor Model 1.3 Multifactor Model 1.4 Benefits of Multifactor Model 1.5 Types of Multifactor Model 1.6 Application of Multifactor Model 1.7 Three Factor Model 1.1 Asset Pricing Model Asset pricing models are models for the pricing of financial assets. It is interesting in itself to be able to model and understand the pricing mechanisms in the seemingly complex financial markets, but it is also important for a number of financial problems faced by individuals and corporations such as: Asset allocation: How individual and institutional investors combine various financial assets into portfolios; The measurement and management of financial risks, e.g. in banks and other financial institutions; Capital budgeting decision in firms; Capital structure decisions in firms; The identification and possible resolution of potential conflicts of interest between the stakeholders of a firm, e.g. shareholders vs. creditors, shareholders vs. managers. The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is the best known asset pricing model. The key message of the model is that the expected excess return on a risky financial asset is given by the product of the market-beta of the asset and the expected excess return on the market portfolio. Elements of asset pricing models are:- 1 1. Assets For potential investors the important characteristics of a financial asset or any other investment opportunity are its current price and its future payments which the investor will be entitled to if they buy the asset. Stocks deliver dividends to owners. The dividends will surely depend on the well being of the company. 2. Investors In reality, only a small part of the trading in financial markets is executed directly by individuals while the majority of trades are executed by corporations and financial institutions such as pension funds, insurance companies, banks, broker firms, etc. However, these institutional investors trade on behalf of individuals, either customers or shareholders. In our basic models we will assume that all investors are individuals and ignore the many good reasons for the existence of various intermediaries. 3. Equilibrium For any given asset, i.e. any given dividend process, the aim is to characterize the reasonable price or the set of reasonable prices. A price is considered reasonable if the price is an equilibrium price. An equilibrium is characterized by two conditions: (1) supply equals demand for any asset, i.e. markets clear, (2) any investor is satisfied with her current position in the assets given her personal situation and the asset prices. 4. The time span of the model As discussed above, the important ingredients of all basic asset pricing models are the dividends of the assets available for trade and the utility functions, current wealth, and future incomes of the individuals that can trade the assets. There are three types of asset pricing models: One-period model: All action takes place at two points in time, the beginning of the period and the end of the period. Assets pay dividends only at the end of the period and are traded only at the beginning of the period. The aim of the model is to characterize the prices of the assets at the beginning of the period. Discrete-time model: All action takes place at a finite number of points in time. Continuous-time model: The continuous-time model is a multi-period model and can potentially capture the dynamics of asset prices. One thing that even advanced investors tend to overlook in their asset pricing model is the inherent limitations in using valuation to forecast future prices. This lack of awareness has led to the proliferation of a wide array of different valuation models that while might be good at assessing intrinsic value, are the most part worthless in projecting actual future value. 2 1.2 Single Factor Model Capital Asset Pricing Model is a relationship explaining how assets should be priced in the capital markets. CAPM postulates that in a perfect market, where shares are correctly priced, every security will give a return commensurate with its risk. Rational investors demand compensation for taking higher risks. So, higher risk securities should be priced to yield higher expected returns. The CAPM has two components of the capital market return, which are: Reward for waiting or riskless return. The reward per unit of risk borne as measured by the slope of the CML line. The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) postulates that the variation in stock returns is solely determined by the market beta. However, several empirical studies show that the CAPM market beta has very little relation to stock returns (Reinganum 1981; Breeden et al 1989; Fama and French 1992) while a number of studies document relationships between returns and variables such as size (market capitalization), book to market (BM) ratio, and past returns. The size effect was first documented by Banz (1981) and Reinganum (1981), who found a return premium on small stocks in the USA. The BM effect was first documented by Rosenberg et al (1985), who found a return premium to stocks with high ratios of book value to market value of equity. Assumptions of CAPM are: Aim to maximize economic utilities. Are rational and risk-averse. Are broadly diversified across a range of investments. Are price takers, i.e., they cannot influence prices. Can lend and borrow unlimited amounts under the risk free rate of interest. Trade without transaction or taxation costs. Deal with securities that are all highly divisible into small parcels. Assume all information is available at the same time to all investors. The CAPM is a single-index model that defines systematic risk in relation to a broad- based market portfolio (i.e., the market index). Systematic (market or macroeconomic) risk is the risk that affects all firms to some degree: external events such as recessions, expansion, interest rates, world events, etc. Systematic (market or macroeconomic) risk usually accounts for about 25% of a typical stock’s total risk. The CAPM is used to estimate a stock’s risk premium and required rate of return. This single factor (“beta”) is unchanging: Rj = Rf + Risk Premium or Rj = Rf + Bj (Rm – Rf) 3 where, Rj = expected return on an asset or portfolio Rf = risk-free rate of return Rm = expected return on the market Bj = volatility of the asset or portfolio to that of the market m. The CAPM has several advantages over other methods of calculating required return, explaining why it has remained popular for more than 40 years: It considers only systematic risk, reflecting a reality in which most investors have diversified portfolios from which unsystematic risk has been essentially eliminated. It generates a theoretically-derived relationship between required return and systematic risk which has been subject to frequent empirical research and testing. It is generally seen as a much better method of calculating the cost of equity than the dividend growth model (DGM) in that it explicitly takes into account a company’s level of systematic risk relative to the stock market as a whole. It is clearly superior to the WACC in providing discount rates for use in investment appraisal. The model does not appear to adequately explain the variation in stock returns. Empirical studies show that low beta stocks may offer higher returns than the model would predict. The model assumes that investors demand higher returns in exchange for higher risk. It does not allow for investors who will accept lower returns for higher risk. The model assumes that all investors agree about the risk and expected return of all assets. The model assumes that there are no taxes or transaction costs, although this assumption may be relaxed with more complicated versions of the model. The market portfolio consists of all assets in all markets, where each asset is weighted by its market capitalization. This assumes no preference between markets and assets for individual investors, and that investors choose assets solely as a function of their risk-return profile. The market portfolio should in theory include all types of assets that are held by anyone as an investment (including works of art, real estate, human capital, etc). In practice, such a market portfolio is unobservable and people usually substitute a stock index as a proxy for the true market portfolio. 1.3 Multifactor Model Multiple factor models (MFMs) which attempt to describe asset returns and their covariance matrix as a function of a limited number of risk attributes, stand out in the modern portfolio theory (MPT). The cornerstone of MPT, developed by Harry Markowitz (1952), is mean–variance portfolio theory. Multi-factor model is a financial model that employs multiple factors in its computations to explain market phenomena. The multi-factor model can be used to explain either an individual security or a portfolio of securities. It will do this by 4 comparing two or more factors to analyze relationships between variables and the security’s resulting performance. A multi-factor model is a modeling tool that is used to identify the underlying reasons for shifts in pricing and other market events. A capital asset pricing model of this type can be applied to an individual security or utilized in relation to an entire portfolio. This is accomplished by analyzing the relationships between applicable variables that result in the performance of that security or group of securities, and will always involve no less than two specific factors. Understanding the relationship between these variables is understood to provide valuable clues that can aid investors in making sound decisions regarding the future disposition of those securities. 1.4 Benefits of Multifactor Model One of the chief benefits of a multi-factor model is the ability to help an investor select securities that are ideally suited for the type of portfolio that he or she wishes to develop. For example, if the investor wants to target investment opportunities that provide a particular range of monetary return while carrying a risk that is no more than a specified level, this model can make it easier to identify those securities. Investors that wish to vary investments in terms of risk level applying this approach can aid in creating the desired balance within the portfolio. Multi-factor models are advantageous because they allow the reduction of the variance-covariance matrix needed to analyze large portfolios and they allow the identification of each factor`s contribution to the portfolio performance. 1.5 Types of Multifactor Model While there are multiple classifications for a multi-factor model, many investment professionals identify three basic kinds or classes: A macroeconomic model often considers factors such as current rates of interest, the rate of inflation or recession, and the current level of unemployment. A fundamental multi-factor model looks closely at the amount of return generated by a given security and the value of its underlying assets. With a statistical model, the focus is typically on the returns of each security that is being considered, comparing and contrasting the performance of each. 1.6 Application of Multifactor Model Applications of multifactor model include: Risk measurement and estimation. Risk management and hedging. Factor-neutral strategies. 5 Trading and arbitrage. Portfolio optimization. Tailoring risk exposures. Style analysis. Performance evaluation. 1.7 Three Factor Model It is apparent that the single-factor CAPM is no longer suitable to explain the relationship between risk and return, but so far there is no universally accepted model to replace it. The most ubiquitous model in the current finance literature is the Fama-French three-factor model, henceforth the Fama French model which posits that the cross-section of average returns can be explained by three factors: 1. The excess market return; 2. A size factor; and 3. A book-to-market equity factor. Fama and French started with the observation that two classes of stocks have tended to do better than the market as a whole: (i) small caps and (ii) stocks with a high book-tomarket ratio. They then added two factors to CAPM to reflect a portfolio's exposure to these two classes:- r = Rf + β3 ( Km – Rf ) + bs . SMB + bv . HML + α Here, r is the portfolio's expected rate of return, Rf is the risk-free return rate, and Km is the return of the whole stock market. The "three factor" β is analogous to the classical β but not equal to it, since there are now two additional factors to do some of the work. SMB stands for "small (market capitalization) minus big" and HML for "high (book-to-market ratio) minus low"; they measure the historic excess returns of small caps over big caps and of value stocks over growth stocks. Earlier research in empirical finance had shown that variables like dividend yields, price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios, book-to-market ratios as well as past returns had significant explanatory power for the variation in cross section of expected returns even after controlling for market risk (Fama and French, 1992). Blieberg [1994] employs aggregate data for future stock returns and average P/E ratio to develop a market timing and asset allocation strategy. To this end, he grouped historical average P/E ratios into quintiles and related them with future returns using S&P 500 index. In this paper, he initially adopted a similar approach by grouping observed average P/E and book-to-market ratios (PBV) into quintiles in 19 emerging equity markets and associating them with 3-month, 6-month and 12-month ahead future returns. He also performed 6 econometric tests on the panel data of emerging equity markets for the period between 1986 to 1999. The results indicated that both P/E and book-to-market ratios had predictive power of future return, especially over longer time periods. Dimson et al (2002) reported the best and worst realized real returns for each country and asset class over the period covered. For the German stock market the minimum return of 89.6% in1948 was immediately followed by the maximum return of 155.9% in 1949. If asset returns had systematic skewness, expected returns should include rewards for accepting this risk. Harvey and Siddique (2002) formalized this intuition with an asset pricing model that incorporated conditional skewness. Their results showed that conditional skewness helped to explain the cross-sectional variation of expected returns across assets and was significant even when factors based on size and book-to-market were included. What can be concluded is that the returns from stock investments can be explained with the help of both market factors as well as the accounting based fundamentals related to the stocks, the relative importance of these factors however has been inconclusive. Moreover, most of the research is confined to the US or other developed markets with emerging and developing markets largely devoid of research inputs. In the light of these arguments, an attempt is required to evaluate the contribution of accounting based fundamentals as well as the market related factors in explaining the stock returns with a special reference to Indian Stock Market. Specifically, the following objectives will be focused on: 1. To study the relationship between stock returns and selected accounting based fundamental variables. 2. To study the relationship between stock returns and selected market variables. The rest of this research is organized as follows. Section 2 relates the research to previous literature. Section 3 introduces the construction of the stock returns, the data, and the summary statistics, followed by evidence about the relationship between stock returns with both market and fundamental variables. Section 4 shows results obtained to achieve the objectives. Various statistical tools had been used for this purpose and section 5 concludes. 7 Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A brief review of the relevant studies has been presented in this section: Earlier evidence concerning the relation between stock returns and the effects of size and earnings to price ratio (E/P) was not clear-cut. This paper re-examined these two effects with a substantially longer sample period, 1951-1986, data that was reasonably free of survivor biases, both portfolio and seemingly unrelated regression tests, and an emphasis on the important differences between January and other months. Over the entire period, the earnings yield effect was significant in both January and the other eleven months. Conversely, the size effect was significantly negative only in January. Jaffe et al (1989) also found evidence of consistently high returns for firms of all sizes with negative earnings. Restoy and Rockinger (1994) presented general conditions under which it was possible to obtain asset pricing relations from the intertemporal optimal investment decision of the firm. Under the assumption of linear homogeneous production and adjustment cost functions, it was possible to establish, state by state, the equality between the return on investment and the market return of the financial claims issued by the firm. The result proved to be, in essence, robust to the consideration of very general constraints on investment and the inclusion of taxes. Fama and French (1996) concluded that average returns on common stocks were related to firm characteristics like size, earnings/price, cash flow/price, book-to-market equity, past sales growth, long-term past return, and short-term past return. As these patterns in average returns were not explained by the CAPM, they were known as anomalies. They found that, except for the continuation of short-term returns, the anomalies largely disappeared in a three-factor model. Their results were consistent with rational ICAPM or APT asset pricing, but they also considered irrational pricing and data problems as possible explanations. Ansari (2000) reviewed the content and scope of CAPM model, examined the issues in the controversy and provided an empirical assessment of the model in India. He used data relating to 96 stocks listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange over the period January 1990 – December 1996. It was inferred that Beta leaves returns unexplained in India during the study period. But the author concluded that it seemed too early to take a stand on the performance of CAPM as an asset pricing model in India. More rigorous tests were warranted in this regard. Only then the applicability of this model in the Indian context can be assured. Bagella et al (2000) found that portfolio strategies based on low values of earning per share (EPS), market to book value (MTBV), market value (MV) and return on equity (ROE) significantly outperformed the index. They found that the significance of cross-sectional determinants of these strategies was not absorbed by ex post betas. They were not riskier in terms of monthly return standard deviations, covariation with GDP growth and their premia 8 did not disappear when survivorship bias was taken into account. Portfolio mean monthly returns (MMRs), regressed on several risk factors in 3-CAPM models, confirmed that S&V strategy premia persist when risk adjusted. Empirical results also mark the difference between ROE and MTBV portfolios, on the one side, and MV and EPS portfolios, on the other. Descriptive statistics on preformation and postformation returns, average balance sheet values and preformation standard deviations clearly showed that ROE and MTBV portfolios had a common financial distress factor and were then more exposed to systematic risk. Trecartin (2001) examined whether the book-to-market ratio consistently explained the cross-section of stock returns through time. The results revealed that the book-to-market ratio was positively and significantly related to return. Other value/growth variables such as Cash Flow, Sales Growth and Size performed even more erratically than the book-to-market ratio, and were thus less likely to be viewed as legitimate risk proxies. Keith (2002) investigated the relation between stock returns and β, size (ME), leverage, book-to-market equity ratio, and earning-to-price ratio (E/P) in Hong Kong stock market using the Fama and French (FF) approach. Size, book-to-market equity, and earningto-price ratios, seemed able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns over the period. The other two variables, book leverage and market, were able to capture the cross-sectional variation in average monthly returns. But their effects seemed to be dominated by size, book-to-market equity, and earning-to-price ratios, and considered to be redundant in explaining average returns when size, book-to-market equity, and earning-to-price ratios were also considered. The results were consistent across sub periods, across months, and across size groups. These suggested that the results were not driven by extreme observations or abnormal return behavior in some of the months or by size groups. Mohanty (2002) documented that it was found that the size (measured by market capitalization), market leverage, price-to-book value, and earnings-to-price ratio were highly correlated with stock returns. While size and price-to-book value were negatively correlated with stock returns, earnings-to-price and market leverage were found to be positively correlated with stock returns. The study also found a flat relationship between returns and beta. Pena and Gilana (2003) studied the suitability of the CAPM to the Spanish Stock Market Interconnection System (SIBE) for the period 1988-2000, by means of time series and cross-section multivariate tests. Even though there was no enough empirical evidence to reject this model, it was shown that the relation between risk beta and stock returns is weak. Therefore, they looked for several fundamental variables – using Fama and MacBeth OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) and LTS (Least Trimmed Squares) estimators – which could explain, with or without beta, the cross-section of stock returns. They concluded that there was a strong earning-price ratio effect in the Spanish Stock Market and that beta was able to 9 explain the cross-section of expected returns, not solely, but jointly with earning price ratio. On the other hand, there was neither size nor book-to-market ratio effects. Lewellen (2004) examined whether financial ratios like dividend yield could predict aggregate stock returns or not. Predictive regressions were subjected to small-sample biases, but the correction used by prior studies could substantially understate forecasting power. He showed that dividend yield predicted market returns during the period 1946–2000, as well as in various subsamples. Book-to-market and the earnings-price ratio predicted returns during the shorter sample 1963–2000. Stefanis (2005) showed that the P/E phenomenon also exists in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE). In respect to his resulted evidence, the ratio was found to be negatively related to subsequent equity performance. Furthermore, accounting variables such as market value and earnings growth play an important role in the explanation of the cross- sectional variation of stock returns. The resulted evidence presented industry as being an indicative factor of such accounting variables, as well as, past market returns to be negatively related to subsequent stock performance. Weighand and Irons (2005) identified a significant break in the stock return. They started from market P/E ratios of 21 or greater, 10-year real returns were in line with their long-term historical average, and real earnings growth was well above average. They modeled this break in the data and included the effect of several macroeconomic factors which resulted in forecasts of future returns that were considerably more optimistic than those of previous studies. They also showed that the way investors use the Fed Model to benchmark the earnings yield on stocks to the 10-year T-note yield has resulted in these two series becoming co-integrated over time. The reciprocal of the E/P ratio, the market P/E, becomes nonstationary, which means that the P/E ratio can stay above trend for an indefinite period of time. The market P/E no longer displays mean-reverting behavior, implying that high P/E ratios could be with us for the long term. Rahmani et al (2006) identified the variables affecting stock return and its price in the emerging markets. According to CAPM, Beta (β) was the only variable capable of predicting the return. The past studies demonstrated that there existed other variables which outperformed stock return predictability potential of the Beta. Included among such variables were the size, debt-to-equity, book-to-market, earnings-to-price and sale-to-price ratios. The research was aimed at testing the above variables and Beta for the prediction of stock return in order to recognize the variables which were better capable of predicting the stock return in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). Choudhary (2007) concluded that low market capitalization, P/E ratio and earnings per share portfolios respectively earned better than high market capitalization, P/E ratio and earnings per share portfolios, in terms of absolute and risk-adjusted rate of return. 10 Penman et al (2007) demonstrated that enterprise book-to-price ratio was positively related to subsequent stock returns but, the leverage component of B/P was negatively associated with future stock returns (conditional upon the enterprise book-to-price). Their work laid out a decomposition of book-to-price (B/P) articulating precisely how B/P absorbed leverage. It was found that The B/P ratio could be decomposed into an enterprise book-to-price that pertained to operations and potentially reflected the operating risk and a leverage component that reflected the financing risk. The empirical analysis showed that the enterprise book-toprice ratio was positively related to subsequent stock returns but, depending upon the enterprise book-to-price, the leverage component of B/P was negatively associated with future stock returns. The finding with respect to the leverage component of B/P survived under controls for size, estimated beta, return volatility, momentum, and default risk. Muradoglu and Sivaprasad (2008) investigated the effect of firm’s leverage on stock returns. They started with the explicit valuation model of Miller and Modigliani (1958) and expanded the model further to test the relation between stock returns and firms’ leverage. Miller and Modigliani conducted their empirical tests exclusively in the utilities and oil and gas industries. They conducted their tests in all risk classes. Miller and Modigliani conducted their tests in the cross section for one year whereas they employ a rich panel dataset. They used balance sheet definitions for return to equity while they use stock returns. They first conducted the analysis at the firm level and then at the portfolio level to include factor mimicking portfolios for size, book-to market, market risk and momentum. They found that for utilities, returns increase in leverage and for the other sectors, the relationship was negative. Results were robust to other risk factors and level of analysis. They concluded that the contradicting empirical results in literature were mainly due to the restrictions in the samples used. Pagas et al (2008) applied a multifactor expected-returns model to estimate security payoffs against factors related to various characteristics such as risk, price level, liquidity, growth potential and previous performance. These payoffs were then used to estimate out-ofsample expected returns and to construct a ‘super stock’ portfolio. Their analysis suggested that compared to the existing risk-factor models, an ‘expected-returns’ factor model exhibited increased predictive power of expected returns and had consistently higher average realized returns with lower average risk. Tripathy (2008) studied the relationship between four company fundamental variables (viz. market capitalization, book equity to market equity ratio, price earnings ratio and debt equity ratio) and equity returns in Indian stock market. The study showed that market 11 capitalization and price earnings ratio have statistically significant negative relationship with equity returns while book equity to market equity ratio and debt equity ratio have statistically significant positive relationship with equity returns in India. Elleuch and Trabelsi (2009) examined whether a simple fundamental analysis strategy based on historical accounting information could predict stock returns. The paper’s goal was to show that simple screens based on historical financial signals could shift the distribution of returns earned by an investor by separating eventual winners stocks from losers. Results showed that historical accounting signals could be used to improve the entire distribution of future returns earned by an investor. Despite the overall down activity of the market over the sample period chosen, results revealed that fundamental accounting signals could be used to discriminate from an overall sample generating future negative returns of a winner portfolio that provided positive future return from a loser one generating a negative return. The over-performance of the winner portfolio seemed to be attributable to the ability of the fundamental signals to predict future earnings. Results showed that fundamental signals had a positive and significant correlation with future earnings performance and that the winner portfolio had a future earnings realization that outperformed that of the loser portfolio. Gilbert et al (2009) aimed to confirm the existence of size, book to market and momentum effects in the New Zealand stock market. They aimed to compare the performance of the CAPM, the Fama-French model, and Carhart’s model in explaining the variation of stock returns. They adapted the Fama and French methodology using a 2 x 3 size - book to market ratio sort. They also formed three portfolios based on past returns to verify the momentum effect. They found some improvement in explanatory power provided by the Fama French model relative to the CAPM but it still leaves a large part of the variation in stock returns unexplained. The Fama French model was also unable to explain the strong momentum effect in New Zealand. Their findings implied that cost of capital estimated would be more accurate using Carhart’s model. Portfolio managers could increase returns by investing in small and high book to market firms that were recent winners. Performance evaluation should take into account the size, book to market and momentum effect. Karani (2009) established the relationship between the debt-equity ratio and the expected common stock returns while controlling for beta and size of the firm. Similar studies had been carried out in developed markets that had a confirmed that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between the debt-equity ratio and the expected common stock returns. The dependent variable in the study was the expected common stock returns while the independent variables were the firm size, beta the risk measure and the debt-equity ratio. The main objective was to determine whether the debt-equity ratio was positive. Secondary data comprising of stock prices, dividends, financial statements of the listed companies and the Nairobi stock exchange monthly 20 share index was obtained from Nairobi Stock exchange 12 and analyzed using linear multiple regression for a period of 10 years, 1998 to 2007. The results were inconclusive therefore there was no relationship that was found to exist between the expected common stock returns and the debt-equity ratio in the Kenyan market. In the Kenyan capital market, the debt-equity ratio of a firm was probably not a major factor to consider when making investment decisions on common stock securities. Khan (2010) studied the effects of P/E ratio and M/B ratio on stock return of listed firms with Karachi Stock Exchange in the Textile sector of Pakistan. A total of 30 major firms out of 162 in the textile sector listed with the Karachi Stock Exchange for the period of 20012006 were selected on the basis of their size in terms of total assets. Firms which have larger size in terms of total assets among 162 firms were selected in this paper. The study revealed that the firms in an exclusive sector exhibit unique attributes that were sector specific and cannot be applied to or judged by combined analysis of the industry. The result showed that coefficients of independent variables are statistically insignificant. This means that stock return was not depending on any of the two independent variables. Besides insignificant coefficients, coefficients of determination were also very low in each case. This means that a very low percentage of change in stock return was explained by these two variables. The data was analyzed by running linear regression. Two independent variables i.e. P/E ratio and M/B ratio were selected to see their effects on stock return. Multiple regression models along with a measure of correlation were used to study the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable. The results for the study revealed that stock return is independent of the two independent variables studied in this paper. The purpose of this paper was to investigate whether the current period earning divided by stock price at the beginning of the stock market period, current period dividend divided by stock price at the beginning of the stock market period, prior dividend divided by stock price at the beginning of the stock market period and the reverse of stock price at the beginning of the stock market period were relevant to explain stock market returns in Iran. Ebrahimi and Chadegani (2011) used cross-section, pooled data and panel data regression models for testing the effects of the above variables on stock returns. The results showed that in some years, shareholders paid special attention to dividends and also the variable prior dividend divided by stock price at the beginning of the stock market period affected stock return. Moreover, there was a significant relationship between current period earning divided by stock price at the beginning of the stock market period and stock return. Thus, results theoretically supported the existence of relationship between earning, dividend and stock return. Khrawish et al (2010) examined the effect of interest rates on the stock market capitalization rate in Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) over the period 1999-2008. Based on the multiple linear regression model and simple regression model, the time series analysis 13 revealed that there was significant and positive relationship between government prevailing interest rate (R) and stock market capitalization rate (S). The study showed that Government development stock rate (D) exerts negative influence on stock market capitalization rate (S), also it found a significant and negative relationship between government prevailing interest rate (R) and Government development stock rate (D). Alroaia et al (2012) focused on two factors of return on stock and price-earnings ratio and investigated the relationship between these two variables. In this study, the price-earnings ratio and stock return were analyzed by the data of this ratio and the latest daily trading price of the companies that in the calculation of stock return was used in April of 2001 to March of 2008 for 46 companies the member of sample population. By econometric tests, the validity conditions of satisfaction of regression equation in the mentioned companies were analyzed. The results of the regression indicated a positive and significant relationship between stock return and price-earnings ratio; it means that this ratio was a significant variable to explain the stock return. Chan et al (2012) related cross-sectional differences in returns on Japanese stocks to the underlying behavior of four variables: earnings yield, size, book to market ratio, and cash flow yield. Alternative statistical specifications and various estimation methods were applied to a comprehensive, high-quality data set that extended from 1971 to 1988. The sample included both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms, companies from both sections of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and also delisted securities. Their findings revealed a significant relationship between these variables and expected returns in the Japanese market. Of the four variables considered, the book to market ratio and cash flow yield have the most significant positive impact on expected returns. Dash (2012) evaluated the pricing implication of unconditional five factor model to explain the cross sectional stock return behavior in the context of Indian stock market. His analysis aimed to examine the pricing nature of aggregate market wide sentiment risk in the presence of other risk factors. He employed Fama and French time series regression approach to examine the impact of market risk premium, size, book-to-market equity, momentum and liquidity as risk factors on stock return. With the presence of liquidity factor in the five factor model specification, the results suggested that liquidity is priced and explained a cross sectional variation in stock returns. Elisa et al (2012) presented a method of stock selection and evaluation based on discriminant analysis. For this purpose, they investigated the cross-sectional relation between fundamental and financial variables, besides the CAPM beta coefficient and the average stock returns. They examined stocks traded on Sao Paulo Stock Exchange during the period January 2006 to December 2010. The results were quite satisfactory, as the discriminatory predictive 14 capacity obtained a level of success. They also concluded that the beta coefficient had discriminatory capabilities. Lalithakumari and Venugopal (2012) examined a thorough analysis about the high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as the return, within an expected period of time. The objectives of the study were to determine the risk return relationship of the portfolio stocks, to analyze the performance of the portfolio based on the investment strategies and to find out the relationship between the performance of the portfolio and the investment strategies. The research is descriptive in nature. The sampling method used for the study was stratified sampling. For selecting the sample, population was divided into various stratas based on the market capitalization, earnings per share and price earnings ratio. The data taken for the study was secondary and was collected from Bombay Stock Exchange website and Kotak Securities database for a period of 6 years from 2005 to 2011. The tools used for analysis were mean, standard deviation, covariance, Sharpe measure, Treynor measure and Jensen measure. According to the market capitalization investment strategy, high market capitalization portfolio were outperforming the low market capitalization portfolio. According to the earnings per share investment strategy, high earnings per share portfolio was outperforming the low earnings per share portfolio. According to the price earnings ratio investment strategy, low price earnings ratio portfolio was outperforming the high price earnings ratio portfolio. Lioui and Maio (2012) derived a macroeconomic asset pricing model in which the key factor was the opportunity cost of money. The results showed that the model explained well the cross-section of stock returns in addition to the excess market return. The interest rate factor was priced and seemed to drive most of the explanatory power of the model. In this model, both value stocks and past long-term losers enjoyed higher average (excess) returns because they had greater interest rate risk than growth/past winner stocks. The model significantly outperformed the nested models (Consumption-CAPM and CAPM) and compared favorably with alternative macroeconomic models. 15 Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The present chapter describes the research methodology of the study. In order to achieve the objectives of the study as given in chapter I, various tools were adopted. It includes selection of sample, collection of data and choice of statistical tools. This chapter explains in detail the research methodology in following sections:3.1 Research Framework 3.2 Population and sample 3.3 Variables used in the study 3.4 Collection of data 3.5 Analysis of data 3.6 Limitation of study 3.1 Research Framework The main theme of this research had been conceptualized within a framework to avoid a disorder or an ambiguity in the process of conducting the study. The research has been done to study the relationship between stock return with fundamental and market variables. For the purpose of completion of objectives, secondary information was selected. 3.2 Population and sample The population for the research consisted of all the stocks listed on NSE and BSE. The sample for the study was chosen from stocks from BSE Sensex. The index consist of 30 stocks. The list of listed stocks was obtained from Ludhiana Stock Exchange (LSE) and the sample was selected from there. 3.3 Variables used in the study The study was conducted using various variables as discussed below:3.3.1 Book to Market Value Book to market ratio is a ratio used to find the value of a company by comparing the book value of a firm to its market value. Book value is calculated by looking at the firm's historical cost, or accounting value. Market value is determined in the stock market through its market capitalization. Book to market value = Book value of firm Market value per quarter 16 Where, Book value is taken per annum. And, Market value is the closing price per quarter. The book-to-market ratio attempts to identify undervalued or overvalued securities by taking the book value and dividing it by market value. In basic terms, if the ratio is above 1 then the stock is undervalued and if it is less than 1, the stock is overvalued. 3.3.2 Debt to Equity Ratio The debt-to-equity ratio is a measure of the relationship between the capital contributed by creditors and the capital contributed by shareholders. It also shows the extent to which shareholders' equity can fulfill a company's obligations to creditors in the event of a liquidation. Debt to equity ratio = Total liabilitie s Shareholde rs equity Sometimes, only interest-bearing long-term debt is used instead of total liabilities in the calculation. It is also known as the Personal Debt/Equity Ratio, this ratio can be applied to personal financial statements as well as corporate ones. A high debt/equity ratio generally means that a company has been aggressive in financing its growth with debt. Lenders and investors usually prefer low debt-to-equity ratios because their interests are better protected in the event of a business decline. Thus, firms with high debt-to-equity ratios may not be able to attract additional capital. 3.3.3 Earnings to Price Ratio Earnings to price ratio is a valuation ratio of a company's current share price compared to its per-share earnings. Earnings to price ratio = Earnings per share Stock price per quarter Where, Earnings per share is EPS after extraordinary items per quarter. And, Stock price is closing price per quarter. The E/P looks at the relationship between the company’s earnings and the stock price. EPS is usually from the last four quarters (trailing E/P), but sometimes it can be taken from the estimates of earnings expected in the next four quarters (projected or forward E/P). 3.3.4 Sales to Price Ratio Sales to price ratio is a ratio for valuing a stock in relation to its own past performance, other companies or the market itself. Sales to price is calculated by dividing by revenue per share by its stock's current price for the trailing 12 months. 17 Sales to price ratio = Re venue per share per quarter Share price per quarter Where, Share price is the closing price per quarter. The sales to price ratio can vary substantially across industries; therefore, it's useful mainly when comparing similar companies. Because it doesn't take any expenses or debt into account, the ratio is somewhat limited in the story it tells. 3.3.5 Market Capitalization Market capitalization (market cap) is the total value of the shares of a company, sector or market. Market capitalization or market Cap is calculated by multiplying the current stock price by the number of outstanding shares. This number gives you the total value of the company. Market capitalization = No. of outstanding shares × stock price Where, Outstanding shares are taken per quarter. And, Stock price is closing price per quarter. For Example: A stock trading at Rs 55 with 100,000 outstanding shares would have a market cap of Rs 5.5 lakhs. 3.3.6 Beta Beta measures a stock’s degree of systematic or market risk. It can also be thought of as the stock’s contribution to the risk of a well-diversified portfolio. Firms that supply basic consumer goods (Proctor & Gamble) and utilities (phone, cable, gas, or electric) tend to have low Betas (lower than 1.0, often around 0.4 to 0.6). Firms that are in economically cyclical industries would have higher Betas (greater then 1.0). β = 1: The stock has average market risk. The stock generally tends to go up (down) by the same percentage amount as the market. β = 1.5: The stock generally tends to go up (down) by 50% (1.5x) more than the market. β = 0.5: The stock generally tends to go up (down) by half as much as the market. β = 0: The stock has no correlation with movements in the overall stock market. All of this firm’s risk would actually be firm-specific risk. β < 0: The stock generally tends move in a direction opposite that of the market (very rare). 3.3.7 Return Return is the gain or loss of a security in a particular period. The return consists of the income and the capital gains relative on an investment. It is usually quoted as a percentage. 18 The general rule is that the more risk you take, the greater the potential for higher return - and loss. Return on a stock is:- = Where, = return on stock, NAV = net asset value of stock, t = the time period. Quarterly returns of stocks for the period were taken and simple averages of such returns were calculated. 3.3.8 Risk-free Return A risk-free return is the return, which investor can get without assuming any risk. The risk-free rate represents the interest on an investor’s money that he or she would expect from an absolutely risk-free investment over a specified period of time. The return is guaranteed on the purchase of such an asset. In this study, 3-month MIBOR rates were used as a proxy for risk free rates for the period. 3.4 Collection of data To meet the objective of the study, secondary source of information were utilized for the collection of required data. Quarterly closing prices were collected from Ace Equity Software provided by LSE. The data was collected for the period of 5 years from 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2012. 3.5 Analysis of data The analysis form a crucial part of research. After collection of data, tables were constructed and analysis of data was done using suitable statistical tools and techniques. Secondary data was analyzed using the following statistical tools: Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Value Maximum Value Range Standard Error of Mean 19 Skewness Kurtosis Coefficient of Variation (CV) Quartile Regression Analysis t-test Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 3.5.1 Mean The arithmetic mean or simply the mean of a list of numbers is the sum of the entire list divided by the number of items in the list. The mean is the most commonly used type of average and is often referred to simply as the average. Mean values were calculated for both the dependent and independent variables. Its formula is:- = Where, = = mean, = number of observations, = a set of data. 3.5.2 Standard Deviation In probability theory and statistics, standard deviation is a measure of the variability or dispersion of a population, a data set, or a probability distribution. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the same value (the mean), while high standard deviation indicates that the data are spread out over a large range of values. Its formula is:- S= Where, S = standard deviation, = number of observations, = a particular observation, = mean of sample. 3.5.3 Minimum Value It tells us the minimum value in the series. 20 3.5.4 Maximum Value It tells us the maximum value in the series. 3.5.5 Range In descriptive statistics, this concept of range has a more complex meaning. The range is the size of the smallest interval which contains all the data and provides an indication of statistical dispersion. It is measured in the same units as the data. Since it only depends on two of the observations, it is most useful in representing the dispersion of small data sets. It is defined as the difference between the maximum and the minimum value in the series. 3.5.6 Standard Error of Mean The standard error of the mean tells us how the mean varies with different experiments measuring the same quantity. Thus, if the effect of random changes are significant, then the standard error of the mean will be higher. If there is no change in the data points as experiments are repeated, then the standard error of mean is zero. Mathematically, the standard error of the mean formula is given by: = Where, = standard error of the mean, = the standard deviation of the original distribution, N = the sample size, = root of the sample size. It can be seen from the formula that the standard error of the mean decreases as N increases. This is expected because if the mean at each step is calculated using a lot of data points, then a small deviation in one value will cause less effect on the final mean. 3.5.7 Skewness Skewness is a measure of symmetry, or more precisely, the lack of symmetry. A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it looks the same to the left and right of the center point. S= Where, = = = third central moment, 21 = sample mean, = a particular observation, = second central moment i.e. the variance. 3.5.8 Kurtosis Kurtosis is a measure of whether the data are peaked or flat relative to a normal distribution. That is, data sets with high kurtosis tend to have a distinct peak near the mean, decline rather rapidly, and have heavy tails. Data sets with low kurtosis tend to have a flat top near the mean rather than a sharp peak. A uniform distribution would be the extreme case. K= Where, = = = fourth central moments, = sample mean, = a particular observation, = second central moment i.e. the variance. 3.5.9 Coefficient of Variation (CV) The coefficient of variation allows you to determine how much volatility (risk) you are assuming in comparison to the amount of return you can expect from your investment. In simple language, the lower the ratio of standard deviation to mean return, the better your riskreturn tradeoff. It is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution. CV = Where, = standard deviation, = mean. The coefficient of variation represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, and it is a useful statistic for comparing the degree of variation from one data series to another, even if the means are drastically different from each other. 3.5.10 Quartile Quartile is a useful concept in statistics and is conceptually similar to the median. The first quartile is the data point at the 25th percentile, and the third quartile is the data point at the 75th percentile. The 50th percentile is the median. 22 The first quartile is at the 25th percentile. This means that 25% of the data is smaller than the first quartile and 75% of the data is larger than this. Similarly, in case of the third quartile, 25% of the data is larger than it while 75% of it is smaller. For the second quartile, which is nothing but the median, 50% or half of the data is smaller while half of the data is larger than this value. 3.5.11 Regression Analysis In statistics, regression analysis is a statistical technique for estimating the relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. More specifically, regression analysis helps one understand how the typical value of the dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed. We applied ordinary least squares regression technique to carry out the analysis using following equations for the CAPM:- = Where, = average return from the stocks for ith quarter, = returns earned in excess of those predicted by the model, = measure of exposure to market, = return from the market portfolio during ith quarter, = risk free return during ith quarter, = random error term. To conduct the study, three regression analysis were carried out:1. Regression analysis between stock return and all variables. 2. Regression analysis between stock return and fundamental variables. 3. Regression analysis between stock return and market variables. To carry out the above analysis, Enter Method was used. It failed to give the appropriate results, so another method, named, Stepwise Method was adopted. 3.5.12 T-test T-test is used to determine whether there is a significant linear relationship between an independent variable X and a dependent variable Y. The test focuses on the slope of the regression line. = 23 Where, = the value of dependent variable, = an intercept, = the slope (also called regression coefficient), = the value of independent variable. If there is a significant linear relationship between the independent variable X and the dependent variable Y, the slope will not be equal to zero. 3.5.13 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used to analyze the differences between group means and their associated procedures, in which the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. In its simplest form, ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of several groups are all equal, and therefore generalizes t-test to more than two groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) consists of calculations that provide information about levels of variability within a regression model and form a basis for tests of significance. The basic regression line concept:Data = fit + residual This equation may also be written as:SST = SSR + SSE Source of variation S.S. (Sum of squares) v (Degrees of freedom) Regression (model) v1 = 2-1 =1 MSR = SSR = v2 = n – 2 Error MSE = SSE = Total M.S.S (Mean sum of squares) SST n-1 Where, n = total number of observations, SST = total sum of squares of variations, SSR = regression sum of squares, SSE = error sum of squares. For the purpose of analysis, Excel, Megastat add-ins have been used. 24 Variance ratio of F 3.6 Limitation of study The study has been undertaken objectively and every effort has been made to make the study effective, strong and up to the mark. However, study suffered from certain constraints and limitations. These are listed below so that findings of the study could be understood in their perspective:1. Since secondary data was used for the purpose of research, the weakness inherent in the secondary data could not be avoided. 2. Only selected market and accounting based fundamental variables were being used, this limits the scope of study. 3. The accuracy of the result was also limited by data analysis and the knowledge of the researcher. 4. The data was collected only of 5 years which limits the time period. 5. The time period was further reduced to quarterly basis which added another limitation to the research. 6. As the study was to be completed in a short time, the time factor acted as a considerable limit on the scope and the extensiveness of the study. 25 Chapter IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains results and discussions of the empirical study conducted on the basis of methodology described earlier in Chapter III. The analysis of secondary data collected was done to study relationship of stock return with market and fundamental variables. As the study is divided into 2 portions, therefore, this chapter is divided into 2 parts, namely:4.1 Descriptive Statistics. 4.2 Application of Multi-factor Model. 4.3 Discussion 4.1 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics are procedures used to summarize, organize, and make sense of a set of scores or observations. Descriptive statistics are typically presented graphically, in tabular form (in tables), or as summary statistics (single values). It is measured in 2 ways, viz. numeric data and non-mean based. Numeric data was calculated using mean, variance (standard deviation), skewness and kurtosis. Non-mean based measure was calculated through mode, median, range and inter-quartile range. Table 1 showed that mean was more than in case of market capitalization i.e. 635.4685 as compared to all other variables namely stock beta with 0.9190, debt to equity with 0.6280, book to market value with 0.6740, earnings to price with 0.0250, sales to price with 203.4435, interest rate with 8.3720 and stock return with 5.7320. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for quarterly returns, market variables and fundamental variables. Stock beta Count 20 Mean 0.9190 Sample 0.0516 standard deviation Minimum 0.82 Maximum 1.02 Range 0.2 Standard error 0.0115 of the mean Skewness -0.0844 Kurtosis -0.1668 Coefficient of 5.61% variation (CV) 1st quartile 0.8900 3rd quartile 0.9475 Debt to equity 20 0.6280 0.0352 Book to market value 20 0.6740 0.2850 0.58 0.68 0.1 0.0079 Market Earnings to Sales to Interest capitalization price price rate Stock return 20 635.4685 251.3830 20 0.0250 0.0095 20 20 203.4435 8.3720 47.4876 2.1436 20 5.7320 17.9686 0.32 1.38 1.06 0.0637 302.37 980.7 678.33 56.2109 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.0021 132.7 293.94 161.24 10.6186 4.6 11.86 7.26 0.4793 -24.72 54.17 78.89 4.0179 0.1843 -1.0947 5.60% 1.1394 1.0017 42.28% 0.1184 -1.6598 39.56% -0.0000 -0.7193 37.84% 0.6921 -0.6207 23.34% -0.5758 0.7873 -0.5763 1.5635 25.60% 313.48% 0.6100 0.6500 0.4650 0.8625 407.8150 881.1550 0.0200 0.0300 26 168.9925 7.2425 234.8625 9.8250 -5.0800 13.9450 Table 1 shows that minimum value in case of stock beta was 0.82, in case of debt to equity 0.58, in case of book to market value 0.32, in case of market capitalization 302.37, in case of earnings to price 0.01, in case of sales to price 132.7, in case of interest rate 4.6 and 24.72 in case of stock return. The maximum value in case of stock beta was 1.02, debt to equity was 0.68, book to market value 1.38, market capitalization 980.7, earnings to price 0.04, sales to price 293.94, interest rate 11.86 and that of stock return was 54.17. Range which was based on lowest and highest value in the series was 0.2 in case of stock beta, 0.1 in case of debt to equity, 1.06 in case of book to market value, 678.33 in case of market capitalization, 0.03 in case of earnings to price, 161.24 in case of sales to price, 7.26 in case of interest rate and in case of stock return was 78.89. Standard deviation was higher in case of market capitalization with 251.3830, sales to price with 47.4876 and stock return with 17.9686 denoting that the data were spread out on a large range of value and it was lower in case of interest rate with 2.1436, book to market value with 0.2850, stock beta with 0.0516 and debt to equity with 0.0352 & lowest in case of earnings to price with 0.0095 denoting that the data points tend to be very close to same value. Coefficient of variation which measures risk per unit of return was low in case of debt to equity with 5.60% and stock beta with 5.61% & it was high in case of stock return with 313.48% in comparison to book to market value with 42.28%, market capitalization with 39.56%, earnings to price 37.84%, sales to price 23.34% and interest rate with 25.60%. Standard error of mean in case of stock beta was 0.0115, in case of debt to equity 0.0079, in case of book to market value 0.0637, in case of market capitalization 56.2109, in case of earnings to price 0.0021, in case of sales to rice 10.6186, in case of interest rate 0.4793 and 4.0179 in case of stock return. Skewness quantifies how symmetrical the distribution is; where positive skewness means the right tail is heavier than the left tail and negative skewness means that the left tail of the distribution is dominant. It was -0.0844 in stock beta, 0.1843 in debt to equity, 1.1394 in book to market value, 0.1184 in market capitalization, -0.0000 in earnings to price, 0.6921 in sales to price, 0.5758 in interest rate and 0.7873 in stock return. Kurtosis measures the degree of peakedness. It was -0.1668, -1.0947, -1.5698, -0.7193, -0.6207 and -0.5763 in case of stock beta, debt to equity, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price & interest rate respectively, indicating longer left tail and it was 1.0017 & 1.5635 in case of book to market value and stock return respectively, indicating longer right tail. 1st quartile in case of stock beta was 0.8900, in case of debt to equity 0.6100, in case of book to market value 0.4650, in case of market capitalization 407.8150, in case of earnings to price 0.0200, in case of sales to price 168.9925, in case of interest rate 7.2425 and -5.0800 in case of stock return. The 3rd quartile in case of stock beta was 0.9475, debt to equity was 0.6500, book to market value 0.8625, market capitalization 881.1550, earnings to price 0.0300, sales to price 234.8625, interest rate 9.8250 and that of stock return was 13.9450. 27 4.2 Application of Multi-factor Model Regression is a means of predicting a dependent variable based on an independent variables. Regression is also convenient for studying two important asset pricing issues. If assets are priced rationally, variables that are related to average returns, such as size and book to market ratio, must proxy for sensitivity to common risk factors in returns. The regressions give direct evidence on this issue. In particular, the slopes and R2 values show whether mimicking portfolios for risk factors related to size and BV/MV capture shared variation in stock return not explained by other factors. The regression analysis use stock returns as dependent variables and size, book to market, earnings to price, sales to price, and beta as independent variables. The estimated intercepts provide a simple return metric and a formal test of how well different combinations of the common factors capture the cross-section of average returns. To conduct the study, three regression analysis were carried out:1. Regression analysis between stock return and all variables. 2. Regression analysis between stock return and fundamental variables. 3. Regression analysis between stock return and market variables. To carry out the above analysis, two methods of regression analysis were adopted, namely: Enter Method. Enter method is a procedure for variable selection in which all variables in a block are entered in a single step. This is an appropriate analysis when dealing with a small set of predictors. Each predictor is assessed as though it were entered after all the other independent variables were entered, and assessed by what it offers to the prediction of the dependent variable that is different from the predictions offered by the other variables entered into the model. The results obtained depend upon variables entered in the model. It is important, therefore, to have good theoretical reasons for including a particular variable. Stepwise Method. In statistics, stepwise regression includes regression models in which the choice of predictive variables is carried out by an automatic procedure. Stepwise is the most sophisticated method. Each variable is entered in sequence and its value assessed. If adding the variable contributes to the model then it is retained, but all other variables in the model are then re-tested to see if they are still contributing to the success of the model. If they no longer contribute significantly they are removed. Thus, this method ensures that one ends up with the smallest possible set of predictor variables included in the model. The main approaches are forward selection and backward elimination. Forward selection starts with the independent 28 variable that is the best predictor of the dependent variable and checks that the coefficient is significantly different from zero, at the 5% level. Backward elimination starts with all independent variables in the regression, then removes the one with the smallest t-statistic, provided that its p value is at least 0.10. ENTER METHOD Table 2: Regression results of relationship between stock return and all variables. Regression output Variables Coefficients Standard Error Intercept 53.4223 173.311 Stock beta 29.156 88.991 Debt to equity -189.4068 217.9356 Book to market value 14.0181 41.5662 Market capitalization 0.06 0.0571 Earnings to price 1,530.23 863.267 Sales to price 0.0273 0.1599 Interest rate -5.6054 2.2238 * n = 20; k = 7; Dependent variable = stock return. t-statistics (df=12) 0.308 0.328 -0.869 0.337 1.051 1.773 0.171 -2.521 p-value 0.7632 0.7488 0.4018 0.7418 0.3138 0.1017 0.8671 0.0269 ** df = degrees of freedom; n = number of observations; k = number of independent variables. Model 1 Model Summary R R² Adjusted R² 0.71 0.503 0.214 Source Sum of Squares Regression 3,088.21 Residual 3,046.33 Total 6,134.54 The regression equation is:- Standard Error 15.933 ANOVA Table Degrees of Mean Sum of Freedom Squares 7 441.1734 12 253.8605 19 Variance Ratio of F 1.74 p-value 0.191 Stock return = 53.4223 + 29.1560 stock beta – 189.4068 debt to equity + 14.0181 book to market value + 0.0600 market capitalization + 1530.2313 earnings to price + 0.0273 sales to price – 5.6054 interest rate. Table 2 shows regression results of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. beta, debt to equity, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. The t-test statistics is each coefficient divided by its standard error. The standard error is the average amount each data point differs from the predicted data point. The p-value of various variables as calculated was beta 0.7488, debt to equity 0.4018, book to market value 0.7418, market capitalization 0.3138, earnings to price 0.1017 and sales to price 0.8671. All the variables were more than 0.05. So, these 29 coefficients were insignificant. But the only variable whose value was below significant level i.e. 0.05, was interest rate with p-value 0.0269. Under model summary table were listed the independent and dependent variables. In the table, the value of R2 tells which was 0.503 or 50% of the variance of stock return was explained by the regression on fundamental and market variables. R2 always increases with inclusion of additional independent variable. Adjusted R2 which was also given, takes account of number of independent variables and also number of cases. The F ratio in the ANOVA table tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit for data. The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable. The variance ratio of F was 1.74 with 7 and 12 degrees of freedom with the probability above 0.05. So, the regression is non-significant. Table 3: Regression results of relationship between stock return and fundamental variables. Regression output Variables Coefficient Standard error t-statistics p-value (df=14) Intercept 127.6395 88.6291 1.44 0.1718 Debt to equity -155.022 173.743 -0.892 0.3873 Book to market -23.9713 20.6568 -1.16 0.2653 value Earnings to price 844.7023 558.2762 1.513 0.1525 Sales to price 0.0734 0.1424 0.516 0.6141 Interest rate -5.3101 2.1221 -2.502 0.0254 * n = 20; k = 5; Dependent variable = stock return. Model 1 R 0.675 Model Summary R² Adjusted R² 0.456 0.262 Standard Error 15.441 ANOVA Table Source Sum of Degrees of Mean Sum Squares Freedom of Squares Regression 2,796.57 5 559.3131 Residual 3,337.97 14 238.4267 Total 6,134.54 19 The regression equation is:- Variance Ratio of F 2.35 p-value 0.0958 Stock return = 127.6395 – 155.0218 debt to equity – 23.9713 book to market value + 844.7023 earnings to price + 0.0734 sales to price – 5.3101 interest rate. Table 3 shows regression analysis of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. debt to equity, book to market value, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. The t-test statistics is each coefficient divided by its standard error. The standard error is the average amount each data point differs from the predicted data point. The 30 p-value of various variables as calculated was debt to equity 0.3873, book to market value 0.2653, earnings to price 0.1525 and sales to price 0.6141. All the variables were more than 0.05. So, these coefficients were insignificant. But the only variable whose value was below significant level i.e. 0.05, was interest rate with p-value 0.0254. Under model summary table were listed the independent and dependent variables. In the table, the value of R2 tells which was 0.456 or 45% of the variance of stock return was explained by the regression on fundamental variables. R2 always increases with inclusion of additional independent variable. In this table, R2 decreases as compared to table 2 because of decrease in independent variables. Adjusted R2 which was also given, takes account of number of independent variables and also number of cases. The F ratio in the ANOVA table tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit for data. The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable. The variance ratio of F was 2.35 with 5 and 14 degrees of freedom with the probability above 0.05. So, the regression is non-significant. Table 4: Regression results of relationship between stock return and market variables. Regression output Variables Coefficients Standard Error Intercept -63.5801 108.1132 Stock beta 66.1196 77.4305 Book to market value 7.5306 40.5038 Market capitalization 0.0476 0.0547 Earnings to price 1,408.59 843.7913 Sales to price -0.0637 0.1196 Interest rate -5.8533 2.1845 * n = 20; k = 6; Dependent variable = stock return. Model 1 Model Summary R R² Adjusted R² 0.687 0.472 0.229 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 2,896.47 3,238.07 6,134.54 t-statistics (df=12) -0.588 0.854 0.186 0.869 1.669 -0.532 -2.679 p-value 0.5665 0.4086 0.8554 0.4005 0.1189 0.6035 0.0189 Standard Error 15.782 ANOVA Table Degrees of Mean Sum of Freedom Squares 6 482.7444 13 249.0825 19 Variance Ratio of F 1.94 p-value 0.1493 The regression equation is:Stock return = – 63.5801 + 66.1196 stock beta + 7.5306 book to market value + 0.0476 market capitalization + 1408.5923 earnings to price – 0.0637 sales to price – 5.8533 interest rate. 31 Table 4 shows regression analysis of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. beta, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. The t-test statistics is each coefficient divided by its standard error. The standard error is the average amount each data point differs from the predicted data point. The p-value of various variables as calculated was beta 0.4086, book to market value 0.8554, market capitalization 0.4005, earnings to price 0.1189 and sales to price 0.6035. All the variables were more than 0.05. So, these coefficients were insignificant. But the only variable whose value was below significant level i.e. 0.05, was interest rate with p-value 0.0189. Under model summary table were listed the independent and dependent variables. In the table, the value of R2 tells which was 0.472 or 47% of the variance of stock return was explained by the regression on market variables. R2 always increases with inclusion of additional independent variable. In this table, the value of R2 decreased as compared to table 2 because of decrease in independent variables. But the value of R2 increased in comparison with the value in table 3 because the number of independent variables were less in table 3 than in table 4. Adjusted R2 which was also given, takes account of number of independent variables and also number of cases. The F ratio in the ANOVA table tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit for data. The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable. The variance ratio of F was 1.94 with 6 and 13 degrees of freedom with the probability above 0.05. So, the regression is non-significant. The method used in above three analysis did not give the appropriate. So, to achieve the objective of studying the relationship between stock return with market and fundamental variables, another method i.e. stepwise selection had been implemented. STEPWISE METHOD Stepwise regression combines forward selection and backward elimination. At each step, the best remaining variable was added, provided it passes the significant at 5% criterion, then all variables currently in the regression were checked to see if any can be removed, using the greater than 10% significance criterion. The process continued until no more variables were added or removed. 32 Table 5: Regression results of relationship between stock return and all variables. Nvar Stock beta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Debt to equity .1772 .6726 .7488 .1797 .2445 .3165 .4018 p-values for the coefficients Book to Market Earnings Sales to Interest Adjusted p-value market capitalization to price price rate R² value .0138 .253 .0138 .0480 .292 .0206 .1186 .0907 .0041 .316 .0283 .1383 .0800 .0125 .351 .0310 .1323 .0796 .6390 .0142 .315 .0620 .6521 .2687 .0887 .0202 .272 .1118 .7418 .3138 .1017 .8671 .0269 .214 .1910 Table 5 shows regression analysis of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. beta, debt to equity, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. It shows that interest rate was the best predictor of stock return and was entered first which gave p-value 0.0138. In second, with debt to equity and interest rate, the p-value was 0.0206. In third, book to market, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0283. In forth, debt to equity, market capitalization, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0310. In fifth, debt to equity, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate were taken which gave p-value 0.0620. In sixth, stock beta, debt to equity, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price and interest rate were taken which gave p-value 0.1118. In seventh, all the variables were taken which gave p-value 0.1910. The p-value in first 4 steps was less than 0.05 and last 3 was more than significant level. So out of the first 4 steps, where the p-value was less than 0.05, maximum value of adjusted R2 had been considered. After considering the value of adjusted R2 in the first 4 steps, the maximum value was at step 4 i.e. 0.351. So the objective is fulfilled at step 4 where p-value was 0.0310. Table 6: Nvar 1 2 3 4 5 Regression results of relationship between stock return and fundamental variables. p-values for the coefficients Debt to Book to Earnings Sales Interest Adjusted p-value equity market to price to rate R² value price .0138 .253 .0138 .1772 .0480 .292 .0206 .1186 .0907 .0041 .316 .0283 .4556 .3032 .1651 .0232 .298 .0521 .3873 .2653 .1525 .6141 .0254 .262 .0958 33 Table 6 shows regression analysis of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. debt to equity, book to market value, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. It shows that interest rate was the best predictor of stock return and was entered first which gave p-value 0.0138. In second, with debt to equity and interest rate, the pvalue was 0.0206. In third, book to market, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0283. In forth, debt to equity, book to market value, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0521. In fifth, all the variables were taken which gave p-value 0.0958. The p-value in first 3 steps was less than 0.05 and last 2 was more than significant level. So out of the first 3 steps, where the p-value was less than 0.05, maximum value of adjusted R2 had been considered. After considering the value of adjusted R2 in the first 3 steps, the maximum value was at step 3 i.e. 0.316. So the objective is fulfilled at step 3 where p-value was 0.0283. Table 7: Regression results of relationship between stock return and market variables. Nvar 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stock beta p-values for the coefficients Book to Market Earnings Sales market capitalization to price to value price .2982 .1186 .3197 .4009 .4086 .8554 .0907 .0639 .0956 .1189 .1260 .1819 .4005 .5685 .6035 Interest Adjusted rate R² .0138 .0424 .0041 .0034 .0132 .0189 .253 .260 .316 .313 .282 .229 pvalue .0138 .0302 .0283 .0449 .0818 .1493 Table 7 shows regression analysis of dependent variable, viz. stock return and independent variable, viz. beta, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate. It shows that interest rate was the best predictor of stock return and was entered first which gave p-value 0.0138. In second, with sales to price and interest rate, the p-value was 0.0302. In third, book to market, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0283. In forth, stock beta, market capitalization, earnings to price and interest rate gave p-value 0.0449. In fifth, stock beta, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate were taken which gave p-value 0.0818. In sixth, all the variables were taken which gave p-value 0.1493. The p-value in first 4 steps was less than 0.05 and last 2 was more than significant level. So out of the first 4 steps, where the p-value was less than 0.05, maximum value of adjusted R2 had been considered. After considering the value of adjusted R2 in the first 4 steps, the maximum value was at step 3 i.e. 0.316. So the objective is fulfilled at step 3 where p-value was 0.0283. 34 4.3 Discussion In this section, overall discussion is done about the results. The mean value was more in case of market capitalization as compared to all other variables. Standard deviation was high in case of market capitalization, sales to price, and stock return. Standard deviation was lowest in case of earnings to price. Coefficient of variation was high in case of stock return and low in case of debt to equity and stock beta. The regression analysis was performed with stock return as a dependent variable, and market and fundamental variables as the independent variables. All the variables except interest rate were observed to be insignificant from the three analysis that were carried out. To solve the purpose of the study another method was adopted. It was found that among all the variables, debt to equity, book to market value, market capitalization, earnings to price and interest rate proved to be significant. The best relationship was between stock return with earnings to price and interest rate. 35 Chapter V SUMMARY In this chapter, a brief summary of the study have been presented, so as to understand the implications of the findings. 5.1 Summary The research aimed at studying the relationship between stock return with fundamental variables and market variables on the basis of pooled cross-sectional data of a five year period ranging from 1 April 2007 – 31 March 2012 by applying two statistical tools, viz. regression analysis and descriptive statistics. Following were the objectives of the study:1. To study the relationship between stock returns and selected accounting based fundamental variables. 2. To study the relationship between stock returns and selected market variables. Regression analysis was carried out to meet the above objective. Enter method was adopted to fulfill both the objectives. The method used did not give the appropriate results, so another method i.e. stepwise method was adopted. The method proved statistically significant with respect to book to market value, earnings to price, interest rate, debt to equity and market capitalization. The relationship between book to market value, earnings to price, interest rate and stock return proved more stable as compared to other variables and the stock return. Three different regression analysis were made which gave three different results. In first, debt to equity, market capitalization, earnings to price and interest rates proved significant with stock return. The relationship between book to market value, earnings to price and interest rate proved significant in the second and third analysis. In no year was there a significant relationship between stock beta, sales to price ratio and stock return. Due to instability in the relationship between these two variables and stock return, one should not place great emphasis on them. Another statistical tool used was descriptive statistics under which mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, range, standard error of mean, skewness, kurtosis, coefficient of variation, 1st quartile and 3rd quartile were calculated for dependent and independent variables. The mean value proved to be more in case of market capitalization. Standard deviation was high in case of market capitalization, sales to price, and stock return and lowest in case of earnings to price. Coefficient of variation was high in case of stock return and low in case of debt to equity and stock beta. 36 1.2 Conclusion In kurtosis, stock beta, debt to equity, market capitalization, earnings to price, sales to price and interest rate being negative indicated longer left tail. Book to market value and stock return being positive indicated longer right tail. Positive skewness in debt to equity, book to market value, market capitalization, sales to price and stock return indicated heavier right tail. Negative skewness in stock beta, earnings to price and interest rate showed dominance of left tail. Coefficient of variation which measures risk per unit of return was low in case of debt to equity and stock beta with 5.60% and 5.61%. It was high in case of stock return with 313.48%. Standard deviation was higher in case of market capitalization, sales to price and stock return. It was lowest in case of earnings to price with 0.0095. The mean value was highest in case of market capitalization i.e. 635.46885. Enter method was used for regression analysis which did not provide appropriate results. p-value of all the variables came out to be more than significant level i.e. 0.05. Stepwise method proved to be more significant: 3 cases were taken into account and significant level was judged at a point where adjusted R2 was maximum and p-value was less than 0.05. In first case, 7 steps were calculated where significant level was at step 4 with adjusted R2 0.351 and p-value 0.0310. In second case, 5 steps were calculated where significant level was at step 3 with adjusted R2 0.316 and p-value 0.0283. In third case, 6 steps were calculated where significant level was at step 3 with adjusted R2 0.316 and p-value 0.0283. The method proved statistically significant with respect to book to market value, earnings to price, interest rate, debt to equity and market capitalization. No relationship was found between beta and sales to price with stock return. 37 REFERENCE Alroaia V Y, Abadi M E H and Khosravani A (2012) The Investigation of PriceEarnings Ratio (P/E) and Return on Stock : The Case of Tehran Stock Exchange. J Asian Dev Studio 1(2):35-44. Ansari V A (2000) Capital asset pricing model: Should we stop using it? Vikalpa 25(1):55-64. Bagella M, Becchetti L and Carpentieri A (2000) The first shall be last : Size and value strategy premia at the London Stock Exchange. J Bank & Fin 24:893-919. Banz R (1981) The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. J Fin Eco 9:3-18. Bleiberg S (1994) Price-earnings ratios as a valuation tool, in Lofthouse, Stephen, Readings in Investments, Wiley, pp. 341-351. Breeden D T, Gibbons M R and Litzenberger R H (1989) Empirical tests of the consumptionoriented CAPM. J Fin 44:231-62. Chan L K C, Hamao Y and Lakonishok J (2012) Fundamentals and stock return in Japan. J Fin 46(5):1739-1764. Choudhary K (2007) Performance of the common stocks under alternative investment strategies. ICFAI J Appl Fin 13:20-32. Dash S R (2012) Does sentiment risk persist as priced risk factor? A multi factor approach for stock return. Retrieved on Sep 23, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2147817. Dimson E, Marsh P, and Staunton M (2002) Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton University Press. Ebrahimi M and Chadegani A A (2011) The relationship between earning, dividend, stock price and stock return : Evidence from Iranian companies. IPEDR Vol 20. IACSIT Press, Singapore. Elisa Siqueira, Thiago Otuki and Newton da Costa Jr (2012) Stock Return and Fundamental Variables: A Discriminant Analysis Approach. App Math Sci 6 no. 115, 5719-5733. Elleuch J and Trabelsi L (2009) Fundamental analysis strategy and the prediction of stock returns. Retrieved on Dec 22, 2012 from www.eurojournals.com/irjfe_30_08.pdf. Fama E F and French K R (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J Fin 47:427465 Fama E F and French K R (1996) Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. J Fin 51:55-84. Gilbert V Nartea, Bert D Ward, Hadrian G Djajadikerta (2009) Size, BM, and momentum effects and the robustness of the Fama-French three-factor model: Evidence from New Zealand. Int J Man Fin 5(2):179-200. 38 Harvey C R and Siddique A (2002) Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. J Fin 55(3):1263-1295. Jaffe J, Keim B D and Westerfireld R (1989) Earnings yields, market values and stock returns. J Fin 44(1) (Abstr). Karani P K (2009) Debt to equity ratio and expected common stock returns: Empirical evidence from the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Retrieved on April 20, 2013 from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/13020. Keith S K Lam (2002) The relationship between size, book-to-market equity ratio, earnings– price ratio, and return for the Hong Kong stock market. Glo Fin J 13:163-179. Khan I M (2010) Price earnings ratio and market to book ratio. J Soc Sci & Hum 7(2):103112. Khrawish A H, Siam Z W, Jaradat M (2010) The relationship between stock market capitalization rate and interest rate : Evidence from Jordan. Bus & Eco Hor 2(2):6066. Lalithakumari G and Venugopal U (2012) A study on performance of the common stocks under alternative investment strategies. Int J Social Sci and Mgt 2(4):11-14. Lewellen J (2004) Predicting returns with financial ratios. J Fin Eco 74:209-235. Lioui and Maio (2012) Interest rate risk and the cross-section of stock returns. Retrieved on Apr 17, 2013 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1571481. Markowitz H M (1952) Portfolio selection. J Fin 7(1):77-91. Mohanty Pitabas (2002) Evidence of size effect on stock returns in India. Vikalpa 27:27-37. Muradoglu G and Sivaprasad S (2008) An empirical test on leverage and stock returns. Retrieved on April 21, 2013 from http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/ EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2009-milan/EFMA2009_0108_fullpaper.pdf . Pagas P, Daynes A and Andrikopoulos P (2008) Multifactor expected-returns models and the performance of super stock portfolios in the UK Equity Market. Retrieved on Sep 23, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1101830. Pena J F and Gilana A L (2003) The explaining role of the earnings-price ratio in the Spanish stock market. Working paper no. 03/03. Penman S H, Richardson S A, Tuna I (2007) The book-to-price effect in stock returns: Accounting for leverage. J Acc Res 45:427-467. Rahmani A, Sheri S and Tajvidi E (2006) Accounting variables, market variables and stock return in emerging markets. Retrieved on Sep 19, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947288. Reinganum M (1981) Misspecification of capital asset pricing: Empirical anomalies based on earnings yields and market values. J Fin Eco 9:19-46. 39 Restoy F and Rockinger G M (1994) On stock market returns and returns on investment. J Fin 49:543-556. Rosenberg B, Reid K and Lanstein R (1985) Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. J Port Mgt 11:9-17. Sharpe W F (1964) Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Fin 19:425-42. Stefanis L (2005) Testing the relation between price to earnings ratio and stock returns in the Athens Stock Exchange. Retrieved on April 21, 2013 from http://ssrn.com/ abstract=872272. Trecartin R R (2001) The reliability of the book to market ratio as a risk proxy. J Fin Ser 9:361-373. Tripathy V (2008) Company fundamentals and equity returns in India. Retrieved on Dec 22, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1134651. Weighand R A and Irons R R (2005) The market P/E ratio: Stock returns, earnings and mean reversion. Retrieved on April 21, 2013 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=683182. 40 VITA Name of the student Father’s name Mother’s name Nationality Date of birth Permanent home address : : : : : : Pavneet Khara Parminder Singh Sukhminder Kaur Indian 9 May, 1990 99 – K, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana - 141001 Bachelor degree University and year of award OGPA/OCPA/% marks Master’s degree OCPA : : : : : B.COM Punjab University, 2011 66% MBA 6.64 Title of Master’s Thesis : Returns from stock investment : An application of multifactor model EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 41 RETURNS FROM STOCK INVESTMENT : AN APPLICATION OF MULTI-FACTOR MODELS Research Project Report Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (Minor subject: Economics) By Pavneet Khara (L-2011-BS-17-MBA) School of Business Studies College of Basic Sciences and Humanities © PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY LUDHIANA-141004 2013 42 CERTIFICATE I This is to certify that the project report entitled, “Returns from stock investment : An application of multi factor model” submitted for the degree of Master of the Business Administration, in the subject of Financial Management (Minor subject: Economics) of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, is a bonafide research work carried out by Pavneet Khara (L-2011-BS-17-MBA) under my supervision and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree. The assistance and help received during the course of investigation have been fully acknowledged. _____________________________ (Dr. Navdeep Aggarwal) Major Advisor Assistant Professor, School of Business Studies, College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana – 141004 43 CERTIFICATE II This is to certify that the project report entitled, “Returns from stock investment : An application of multi factor model” submitted by Pavneet Khara (L-2011-BS-17-MBA) to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of the Business Administration, in the subject of Financial Management (Minor subject: Economics) has been approved by external examiner along with the internal examiner after an oral examination on the same. ___________________ ___________________ Internal Examiner External Examiner (Dr. Sandeep Kapur) Head of the Department 44 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my indebtedness to my Major Advisor, Dr. Navdeep Aggarwal, Assistant Professor, School of Business Studies, for his dexterous guidance, inspiration, sustained encouragement, keen interest and precious time given to me during the course of research project and in successful completion of the manuscript. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have an opportunity to work with him. I express my deep appreciation to Dr. Lalit Mohan Kathuria, Associate Professor, School of Business Studies for his expert guidance. I owe my thanks to Dr. Jagroop Singh Sidhu, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Sociology, for his valuable guidance throughout my research work. I would also like to thank Dr. Pratibha Goyal, Associate Professor, School of Business Studies for her valuable suggestions during the preparation of this manuscript. I express my sincere thanks to all other faculty members of Department of Business Management for providing necessary facilities during the tenure of my studies. A special thanks to my fiancé Vikram Toor for his help and support without which I would not have been able to prepare my thesis. Finally, I would like to thank, God, my family members and friends, for being there on my side, and within me always. Dated: Place: Ludhiana _________________ (Pavneet Khara) 45 Title of the Project Report : Returns from stock investment: An application of multi-factor model. Name of the Student and Admission No. : Pavneet Khara L-2011-BS-17-MBA Major Subject : Financial Management Minor Subject : Economics Name and Designation of Major Advisor : Dr. Navdeep Aggarwal Assistant Professor School of Business Studies Degree to be Awarded : MBA Year of award of Degree : 2013 Total pages in Project Report : 40 + VITA Name of University : Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana- 141004, Punjab, India ABSTRACT The research project “Returns from stock investment : An application of multi-factor model” was undertaken with the objectives to study the relationship between stock returns and selected accounting based fundamental variables and to study the relationship between stock returns and selected market variables. For the purpose of achieving the objectives, the following factors were used in explanation of returns from stock investment, via stock beta, debt to equity ratio, book to market value ratio, size of company measured in terms of market capitalization, earnings to price ratio and sales to price ratio. The study was conducted for the period of 5 years ranging from April 2007 to March 2012. Data on the selected explanatory factors were used for all the stocks constituting the popular BSE Sensex index. Regression analysis and descriptive statistics were used to study the relationship between the stock returns and the identified explanatory variables. Regression results from enter method proved insignificant while that from stepwise method proved statistically significant. The best relationship was found between stock return with earnings to price and interest rate. Key Words: Stock return, beta, book to market, market capitalization, investment, multi-factor model. _______________________ Signature of Major Advisor ______________________ Signature of the student 46 CONTENTS _____________________________________________________________________ Chapter Topic Page _____________________________________________________________________ II. INTRODUCTION 1–7 III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8 – 15 IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 16 – 25 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 26 - 35 VI. SUMMARY 36 - 37 REFERENCES 38 - 40 VITA _____________________________________________________________________ 47