与股权成本相关的规模效应的缺失

Clifford S. Ang
{"title":"与股权成本相关的规模效应的缺失","authors":"Clifford S. Ang","doi":"10.5791/BVR-D-17-00013.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I evaluate whether there is a size effect that is relevant to the cost of equity. I first analyze what model investors use to determine the required rate of return on their investment and find investors prefer the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) over other models, even those that include a size proxy. I also show that over the period 1981 to 2016, small stocks underperformed large stocks, which is inconsistent with the existence of a size effect. Finally, I conclude that size effect studies have not been able to surmount the criticisms that the size effect lacks a theoretical basis and that the results of size effect studies are susceptible to data mining criticisms. Given these results, practitioners should reconsider the standard practice of augmenting their cost of equity with a size premium.","PeriodicalId":138737,"journal":{"name":"Business Valuation Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Absence of a Size Effect Relevant to the Cost of Equity\",\"authors\":\"Clifford S. Ang\",\"doi\":\"10.5791/BVR-D-17-00013.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I evaluate whether there is a size effect that is relevant to the cost of equity. I first analyze what model investors use to determine the required rate of return on their investment and find investors prefer the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) over other models, even those that include a size proxy. I also show that over the period 1981 to 2016, small stocks underperformed large stocks, which is inconsistent with the existence of a size effect. Finally, I conclude that size effect studies have not been able to surmount the criticisms that the size effect lacks a theoretical basis and that the results of size effect studies are susceptible to data mining criticisms. Given these results, practitioners should reconsider the standard practice of augmenting their cost of equity with a size premium.\",\"PeriodicalId\":138737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business Valuation Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business Valuation Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5791/BVR-D-17-00013.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Valuation Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5791/BVR-D-17-00013.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在本文中,我评估了是否存在与股权成本相关的规模效应。我首先分析了投资者使用什么模型来确定所需的投资回报率,并发现投资者更喜欢资本资产定价模型(CAPM)而不是其他模型,甚至是那些包括规模代理的模型。我还表明,在1981年至2016年期间,小型股的表现落后于大型股,这与规模效应的存在不一致。最后,我的结论是,规模效应研究未能克服规模效应缺乏理论基础的批评,以及规模效应研究的结果容易受到数据挖掘的批评。鉴于这些结果,从业者应该重新考虑用规模溢价来增加股权成本的标准做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Absence of a Size Effect Relevant to the Cost of Equity
In this paper, I evaluate whether there is a size effect that is relevant to the cost of equity. I first analyze what model investors use to determine the required rate of return on their investment and find investors prefer the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) over other models, even those that include a size proxy. I also show that over the period 1981 to 2016, small stocks underperformed large stocks, which is inconsistent with the existence of a size effect. Finally, I conclude that size effect studies have not been able to surmount the criticisms that the size effect lacks a theoretical basis and that the results of size effect studies are susceptible to data mining criticisms. Given these results, practitioners should reconsider the standard practice of augmenting their cost of equity with a size premium.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信