Skip to main content
Log in

Decomposition of risk for small size and low book-to-market stocks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Asset Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate whether the size and book-to-market ratio fully capture the financial distress risk of firms within the small/low group of stocks. Size and BE/ME ratio struggle to explain the distress risk of small/low firms because they are usually analyzed together with small declining firms in factor analysis models. Using the Fama–French 3 factor model, we identify small (size) and low (BE/ME ratio) stocks and sort them further based on their financial distress risk. Using thirteen different proxies of financial distress risk, we find that the significant intercept of the Fama–French 3 factor model is statistically insignificant for firms with low financial distress risk. We also show that the low-high portfolios earn statistically significant positive returns when sorting on distress risk. Our results are robust to changes in the distress risk proxy and sorting methods (terciles/quintiles/deciles). We further find that cash flow-based proxies of distress risk generate the highest abnormal returns, followed by analyst coverage and net income.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. DFF allocate stocks into three size groups (small, medium, and large) and three BE/ME groups (low, mid, and high). Independently sorting the universe of stocks on size, as well as BE/ME ratio, they form nine portfolios: small/low, small/mid, small/high, medium/low, medium/mid, medium/high and large/low, large/mid, and large/high.

  2. DFF conjuncture that one of the reasons of significant intercept on portfolio of small/low stocks can be that size and BE/ME ratio might not completely absorb the financial distress risk in 3-factor model.

  3. Eisdorfer et al. (2012) observe that return anomalies are most pronounced among distressed stocks and further elaborate that anomalies exist only among the subset of distressed stocks classified as mis-valued by their model.

  4. Chan and Chen (1991) demonstrate that firm characteristics such as poor past performance, cash flow problems, and higher financial leverage explain differences in returns more so than size.

  5. Cash flow from investing by itself is not a good predictor of distress risk (Dickinson 2011).

  6. Financially distressed stocks have higher short sale constraints, and Diamond and Verrecchia (1987) identify that short sale constraints could act as a barrier to full absorption of information in prices.

  7. Zhang (2006) documents that the uncertainty effect plays a greater role for smaller firms due to higher information asymmetry. The higher information asymmetry results in worsening the effects of financial distress risk and irrational value assignments.

  8. All the abnormal returns are annual returns denoted in percent terms.

  9. Size is calculated as market capitalization (stock price times shares outstanding).

  10. For brevity we report the intercept here, for the full tables, please refer to Online Appendix C Table VIII. Panel A displays decile sorts based on cash flow from operating activities.

  11. In unreported analysis, we also test for robustness by creating a sub-sample of firms with non-missing values for all proxies. This alleviates the concern of non-comparability. Our results are qualitatively similar. To avoid the results being driven by few outliers, we also perform the outlier test. Again, our conclusion remains the same.

References

  • Altman, Edward I. 1968. Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance 23(4): 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz, Abdul, and Gerald H. Lawson. 1989. Cash flow reporting and financial distress models: Testing of hypotheses. Financial Management 18: 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banz, Rolf W., and William J. Breen. 1986. Sample-dependent results using accounting and market data: Some evidence. The Journal of Finance 41(4): 779–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, Sudipta. 1997. The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24(1): 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, William H. 1966. Financial ratios as predictors of failure. Journal of Accounting Research 4: 71–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, John Y., Jens Hilscher, and Jan Szilagyi. 2008. In search of distress risk. The Journal of Finance 63(6): 2899–2939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.C., and Nai-Fu. Chen. 1991. Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms. The Journal of Finance 46(4): 1467–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, Kent, and Sheridan Titman. 1997. Evidence on the characteristics of cross-sectional variation in stock returns. The Journal of Finance 52(1): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, James L., Eugene F. Fama, and Kenneth R. French. 2000. Characteristics, covariances, and average returns: 1929 to 1997. The Journal of Finance 55(1): 389–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBondt, Werner FM., and Richard H. Thaler. 1987. Further evidence on investor overreaction and stock market seasonality. The Journal of Finance 42(3): 557–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Douglas W., and Robert E. Verrecchia. 1987. Constraints on short-selling and asset price adjustment to private information. Journal of Financial Economics 18(2): 277–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dichev, Ilia D. 1998. Is the risk of bankruptcy a systematic risk?. The Journal of Finance 53(3): 1131–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, Victoria. 2011. Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. The Accounting Review 86(6): 1969–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisdorfer, A., A. Goyal, and A. Zhdanov. 2012. "Misvaluation and return anomalies in distress stocks [WWW document]." http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract2023778.

  • Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance 47(2): 427–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, Laurel A., Kimberly J. Rodgers, and Timothy T. Simin. 2007. Measuring distress risk: The effect of R&D intensity. The Journal of Finance 62(6): 2931–2967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, John M., and Michael L. Lemmon. 2002. Book-to-market equity, distress risk, and stock returns. The Journal of Finance 57(5): 2317–2336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Sanford J., and Merton H. Miller. 1988. Liquidity and market structure. The Journal of Finance 43(3): 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Harrison, Terence Lim, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2000. Bad news travels slowly: Size, analyst coverage, and the profitability of momentum strategies. The Journal of Finance 55(1): 265–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Michael C. 2005. Agency costs of overvalued equity. Financial Management 34(1): 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., and I. Lee. 2016. A study on the financial distress risk puzzle in Korea. Korean Journal of Financial Studies 45: 1097–1129.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lakonishok, Josef, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny. 1994. Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. The Journal of Finance 49(5): 1541–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lintner, John. 1965. Security prices, risk, and maximal gains from diversification. The Journal of Finance 20(4): 587–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansi, Sattar A., William F. Maxwell, and Andrew Zhang. 2012. Bankruptcy prediction models and the cost of debt. Journal of Fixed Income 21(4): 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, Harry. 1959. Portfolio selection: Efficient diversification of investments, vol. 16. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert C. 1987. A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. The Journal of Finance 42(3): 483–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mola, Simona, P. Raghavendra Rau, and Ajay Khorana. 2013. Is there life after the complete loss of analyst coverage?. The Accounting Review 88(2): 667–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novy-Marx, Robert. 2013. The other side of value: The gross profitability premium. Journal of Financial Economics 108(1): 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, James A. 1980. Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research 18: 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opler, Tim C., and Sheridan Titman. 1994. Financial distress and corporate performance. The Journal of Finance 49(3): 1015–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penman, Stephen H. 1996. The articulation of price-earnings ratios and market-to-book ratios and the evaluation of growth. Journal of Accounting Research 34(2): 235–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, Harlan D., and Marjorie B. Platt. 2002. Predicting corporate financial distress: Reflections on choice-based sample bias. Journal of Economics and Finance 26(2): 184–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, William F. 1964. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The Journal of Finance 19(3): 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, James. 1969. A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 1(1): 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. Frank. 2006. Information uncertainty and stock returns. The Journal of Finance 61(1): 105–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank John Adams, Bin Srinidhi, and other seminar participants at the University of Texas at Arlington for their comments. We also thank Ed Szado and Mike Shafer for their comments. We also thank the reviewer for the valuable input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arati Kale.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: variable descriptions

Proxy

Definition

Cash flow from operations

The OANCF variable taken from Compustat

Coverage

Distress risk proxy presented in Hong et al. (2000). It is the unique number of analysts covering the firm as of the end of the fiscal year in the previous year

Change in cash flow from operations

Calculated as current year cash flow from operations less cash flow from operations for the previous year

Change in gross profit

Calculated as current year gross profit less gross profit for the previous year

Change in income before extraordinary items

Change in the IB variable as taken from Compustat. It is calculated as the current year IB less IB for the previous year

Change in net income

Change in the NI variable as taken from Compustat. It is calculated as the current year NI less NI for the previous year

Gross profit

The GP variable as calculated from Compustat (sales less cost of goods sold)

Income before extraordinary items

IB variable as taken from Compustat

Lagged coverage

Lagged coverage is the lagged value of analyst coverage as calculated above

Net income

NI variable as taken from Compustat

O-score

Distress risk proxy as presented in Ohlson (1980). It is calculated as,

\(-1.32-0.407\text{log}\left(\frac{\text{Total Assets}}{\text{GNP}}\right)+6.03\left(\frac{\text{Total Liabilities}}{\text{Total Assets}}\right)-1.43 \left(\frac{\text{Working Capital}}{\text{Total Assets}}\right)+0.0757 \left(\frac{\text{Current Liabilities}}{\text{Current Assets}}\right)-1.72 X-2.37 \left(\frac{\text{Net Income}}{\text{Total Assets}}\right)-1.83 \left(\frac{\text{Funds from operations}}{\text{Total Liabilities}}\right)+0.285 Y-0.521 (\frac{\Delta \text{Net Income}}{\left|\text{NI}\right|+\left|\text{Lagged Net income}\right|})\) where

\(X = 1\;{\text{if Total Liabilities}} > {\text{Total}}\;{\text{Assets}},\;{\text{and}}\;{ }0\;{\text{otherwise}}\)

\(Y = 1\;{\text{if net loss for past two years}},\;{\text{and}}\;0\;{\text{otherwise}}\)

Sales

SALE variable obtained from Compustat

Tobin's q

Market value of assets/book value of assets

Decline

Following Dickinson (2011), indicator variable takes a value of 1 if cash flow from operations is negative and cash flow from investing is positive

Growth

Following Dickinson (2011), indicator variable takes a value of 1 if cash flow from operations is positive, cash flow from investing is negative, and cash flow from financing is positive

Appendix B: financial distress risk relation

Proxy

Relation

Cash flow from operations

1=H

Coverage

1=H

Change in cash flow from operations

1=H

Change in gross profit

1=H

Change in income before extraordinary items

1=H

Change in net income

1=H

Gross profit

1=H

Income before extraordinary items

1=H

Lagged coverage

1=H

Net income

1=H

O-score

1=L

Sales

1=H

Tobin’s q

1=L

Decline

1=H

Growth

1=L

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kale, A., Kale, D. & Villupuram, S. Decomposition of risk for small size and low book-to-market stocks. J Asset Manag 25, 96–112 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-023-00329-w

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-023-00329-w

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation