آزمون تجربی تئوری قیمت‌گذاری آربیتراژ با رویکرد ریسک نامطلوب (D-APT) در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت ، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان

2 استادیار دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان،

3 استادیار دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد ، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان

چکیده

هدف از این پژوهش ارائه یک مدل تعمیم یافته از تئوری قیمت‌گذاری آربیتراژ، تحت عنوان تئوری قیمت‌گذاری آربیتراژ نامطلوب، با استفاده از مفاهیم انحراف معیار نامطلوب و بتای نامطلوب است. این پژوهش با دربرگرفتن بازدهی 97 سهم مورد معامله در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران و متغیرهای کلان اقتصادی، به ارزیابی رابطه بین بازدهی تعدیل‌شده و بتای نامطلوب در دوره 1384 تا 1393 به روش پانل دیتا پرداخته است. یافته‌های پژوهش بیانگر وجود رابطه معنی‌داری متغیرهای نرخ ارز، شاخص بورس، نرخ تورم مصرف‌کننده و نرخ سپرده‌گذاری با بازدهی سهام است و ضرایب هر کدام به ترتیب عبارت­اند از  0.45-، 0.20، 1.12 و 2.02- ؛ به‌طوری‌که نرخ ارز و نرخ سپرده‌گذاری رابطه منفی و شاخص بورس و نرخ تورم مصرف‌کننده رابطه مثبتی با بازدهی سهام داشته و مجموعاً 27.17 درصد از تغییرات بازدهی سهام را توضیح می‌دهند. یافته­های تحقیق موید عدم کارایی کافی تئوری قیمت گذاری آربیتراژ در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران می­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Empirical Test of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Based on the Downside Risk(D-APT) in the Tehran Stock Exchange

نویسندگان [English]

  • Moslem Moradzadeh 1
  • Mohammad nabi Shahyeki Tash 2
  • Mohammad Esmaeel Ezazi 3
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Arbitrage pricing theory presented by Ross is based on theory of the absence of arbitrage opportunities in financial market and its main condition is the existence of a linear relationship between the actual return and a set of common factors, In this model, asset pricing is based on risk, although the risk source is not just one factor and its not only the market portfolio, But several factors affect the assets which they are called risk factors. In most APT studies, the researchers test the model through using two scales of beta coefficient and variance. But, the experimental evidences indicate the inefficiency of mean-variance framework, which means that stock returns can't be described well by the mean and variance. In this study, in order to identify the inefficiency of variance (standard deviation), for the first time the new standards of semi-variance and downside Beta in form of APT Model called downside arbitrage pricing theory (D-APT) were used.
 
Case study
This is an experimental quantitative research based on the regression of composite panels with an efficiency of 97 traded stocks in Tehran Stock Exchange as the dependent variable, and six macro-economic variables as the independent variables from 1384 to 1393; so that these companies are among the major stock industries that their activities have not been interrupted during this period and their fiscal year ends on 29/12 of every year.
 
Materials and methods
The dependent variable in the D-APT model is the annual stock return which is calculated in in the form of [min (R_i-R_F, 0)]. To calculate the stock returns derived from RAHAVARD NOVIN 3 software, the required adjustments for dividend, stock awards, priority, and stock splits were conducted. Independent variables are predetermined macro-economic factors involving: exchange rates, stock index,  OPEC oil price, the consumer inflation rate and the deposit rate, which are calculated in this way [min (r_i ^ f-R_F, 0)]. To estimate the model, EVIEWS 9 software is used.
 
Results and discussion
In the present study, at first, the stability of the variables was examined which the results represented that all variables are stable. Based on the F-LIMER statistic, the model was judged whether it is pool or panel which the findings confirmed the existence of fixed effects in comparison to the least square approximation (to put it simply the findings approved panel data in comparison to the pool ones). After confirming the panel model, the Hausman test was used to determine whether the fixed effects model is more efficient or not.  The Hausman test results also indicated that there is no need to use random effects model and fixed effects model should be used. Therefore, the model was estimated based on fixed effects and the final results reflected the negative correlation between the exchange rate and deposit rate variables and the return rate of stock companies, which means that the increase of exchange rate and deposit rate, decreases the return rate and vice versa, as well as the positive relationship between stock index, consumer inflation rate and oil price variables and the rate of return, meaning that with increase of the stock index, consumer inflation rate and oil price, the return rate increases and vice versa.
 
Conclusion
Finally, by estimation of D-APT model, it can be concluded that a significance of more than one factor confirms the APT model with a downside risk approach, and this means that more than one factor can explain changes in stock returns. In addition, 27.17 percent of the changes in stock returns is explained by these factors, while 72.83 percent of return changes can indicate the idiosyncratic risk that this amount is the volatility of stock returns in the portfolio of firm that is the specific variance to each firm which has the reasons unrelated to systemic factors, So we can conclude that a large amount of return variance of each portfolio firm has an uncertain cause that for this type of risk, the market  does not pay any compensation to investment. Results of determination coefficient indicates lack of adequate performance of APT model based on the Downside Risk in Stock Market. Therefore, it is suggested to the investment companies, investment funds, institutional and real investors  to mind both  the upside and downside risk dimensions in their analyzes for buying and selling stocks, and also pay attention to the effects of counterproductive economic activities based on downside risk on stock returns.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Arbitrage pricing theory
  • Downside arbitrage pricing theory
  • Downside beta
  • semi-variance
1-Azeez, A.A., & Yonezawa, Y. (2006). Macroeconomic factors and the empirical content of the arbitrage pricing theory in the Japanese stock market, Japan and the World Economy, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp:568-591.

2-Baghdadabad, M. R. T., & Nor, F. M., Ibrahim, I. (2011). An Empirical Analysis of Funds'alternative Measures in the Drawdown Risk Measure (DRM) Framework, Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, 2(2 (4)), 16.

3-Baghdadabad, M. R., & Glabadanidis, P. (2014). An Extensile Method on the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Based on Downside Risk (D-APT), International Journal of Managerial Finance, 10(1), pp: 54-72.

4-Baghdadabad, M. R., Glabadanidis, P. (2013). Evaluation of Malaysian Mutual Funds in the Maximum Drawdown Risk Measure Framework, International Journal of Managerial Finance, 9(3), pp: 247-270.

5-Bookstaber, R., & Clarke, R. (1985). Problems in Evaluating the Performance of Portfolios with Options, Financial Analysts Journal, 41(1), pp: 48-62.

6-Brealey, R. A., Myres S. C., Allen, F. (2011). Principles of Corporate Finance, Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin, 10th.

7-Dastgir, M., Sajjadi, H., Khodadadi, V., & Khalili, P. (1388). the investigation of risk factors affecting stock returns of active firms in the petrochemical industry. Journal of Economic Sciences, 32, 58-35. (In Persian)

8-Elton, E. J., & Gruber, M. J. (1988). A Multi-Index Risk Model of the Japanese Stock Market, Japan and the World Economy, 1(1), pp: 21-44.

9-Estrada, J. (2002). Systematic Risk in Emerging Markets: The D-CAPM, Emerging Markets Review, 3(4), pp: 365-379.

10-Estrada, J. (2004). Mean-Semivariance Behaviour: An Alternative Behavioural Model, Journal of Emerging Market Finance, 3(3), pp: 231-248.

11-Estrada, J. (2007). Mean-Semivariance Behavior: Downside Risk and Capital Asset Pricing, International Review of Economics & Finance, 16(2), pp: 169-185.

12-Gan, Xianghua, Suresh, P. S., Houmin Y. (2005). Channel Coordination with a Risk‐Neutral Supplier and a Downside‐Risk‐Averse Retailer, Production and Operations Management, 14, pp: 80-89.

13-Gay Jr, R. D. (2008). Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on Stock Market Returns for Four Emerging Economies: A Vector Regression Model for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. ProQuest.

14-Ghalibaf Asl, H., & Izadi, M. (1393). investigating the relationship between risk and stock returns in Tehran Stock Exchange: Effect of acceleration and liquidity risk. monetary and financial economics, 7, 84-104. (In Persian)

15-Gholamiparvar, A. (1390). testing the conditional model of arbitrage in Tehran Stock Exchange. Master thesis, University of Sistan and (In Persian)

16-Ghuadir, M. M. (2012). The Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on Stock Returns on Dhaka Stock Exchange, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol 2, No 4, pp:480-487.

17-Harding, M. C. (2008). Explaining the Single Factor Bias of Arbitrage Pricing Models in Finite Samples, Economics Letters, 99(1), pp: 85-88.

18-Harvey, C. R., Siddique, A. (2000). Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests, The Journal of Finance, Vol 55, pp: 1263-1295.

19-Kallio, M., Ziemba, W. T. (2007). Using Tucker’s Theorem of the Alternative to Simplify, Review and Expand Discrete Arbitrage Theory, Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(8), pp: 2281-2302.

20-Liu, M. H., Shrestha, K. M. (2008). Analysis of the Long-Term Relationship Between Macroeconomic Variables and the Chinese Stock Market Using Heteroscedastic Cointegration, Managerial Finance, 34(11), pp: 744-755.

21-Markowitz, H. M. (1959). Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments, Cowles Foundation Monograph, No. 16T, New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

22-Mohseni Demne, G. (1386). How to test the arbitrage pricing theory?. Economic Journal, 27, 246-219. (In Persian)

23-Post, T., & Van Vliet, P. (2006). Downside risk and asset pricing, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp: 823-849.

24-Raee, R., & Khosravi, A.R. (1386). explaining the pricing model of capital asset with downside risk approach in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Humanities and Social Sciences "for the economy", 28, 45-62. (In Persian)

25-Roll, R., & Ross, S. A. (1984). The Arbitrage Pricing Theory Approach to Strategic Portfolio Planning, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol 40, No 3, pp: 14-19+22-26.

26-Ross, S. A. (1976). The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing, Journal of Economic Theory, 13(3), pp: 341-360.

27-Sadorsky, P., & Henriques, I. (2001). Multifactor Risk and the Stock Returns of Canadian Paper and Forest Products Companies, Forest Policy and Economics, 3(3), pp: 199-208.

28-Sajjadi, H., & Farazmand, H. (1390). using  the arbitrage pricing theory through macroe-conomic variables in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Financial Research, 94, 66-45. (In Persian)

29-Sajjadi, H., Farazmand, H., & Sufi. H.A. (1389). the investigation of the relationship between macro-economic variables and indicators of return on cash in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Economic Sciences, Issue 39, 150-123. (In Persian)

30-Tayyebnia, A., & Sourani, D. (1392). macro-economic factors and some evidences on the arbitrage pricing theory in Tehran stock exchange. Journal of Research and Economic Policy, 66, 23-37. (In Persian)

31-Tehrani, R., Islami Bidgoli, Gh., & Veisizadeh, S. (1391). performance evaluation of portfolio management using Sortino criteria, favorable potential and Omega in the investment firms listed in the Tehran Stock Exchange. financial management perspective,5, 53-64. (In Persian)

32-Vakilifard, H.R., & Zarei, A. (1388). studying  the ability of accounting variables in predicting risk criteria of arbitrage pricing model. Economic Journal, vol. 34, 113-134. (In Persian)

33-Yang, Y., Tan, Z., & Zou, J. (2010). Applicability of arbitrage pricing theory on Chinese security market. In Business Intelligence and Financial Engineering (BIFE), 2010 Third International Conference on ,pp. 179-182, IEEE.