Sample of an Academic Paper on the Small Firm Effect

At last, a conclusion about whether or not to use this anomaly earn profit will be provided. Explanation of small firm effect and its methodologies Small firm effect refers to a situation which the average risk adjusted returns of smaller firms are higher than the larger firms Band(1981). This situation shows the insufficient of CAMP in predicting the stock returns and counter-argues the efficient market hypothesis Band(1981). It was found by researching the relationship between the return and market value of common stocks in the New York Stock Exchange.

The researchers build a generalized asset pricing model which adds the variable market value of security to the capital assets pricing model Band(1981). The constant measuring the contribution of market value of a stock to the expected return of the stock was found as a significantly negative number for the all-time period Band(1981). This indicates that the larger the market values the smaller the expected returns Band(1981). Supporting evidence There are several evidences support the small firm effect as an anomaly counter- argues the efficient market hypothesis in relate to the capital assets pricing model.

Under the efficient market hypothesis, no persistent excess profits can be earned on a stock by using public available information. However, the research done by Band(1981) proves that about twenty percent risk-adjusted profits can be earned by using strategy of taking long positions in a portfolio of smaller firms and taking short position in a portfolio of larger firms in a year. Furthermore, the researches done by Brown, Klein and Marsh (1983) shows that excess returns can be earned in related to firm size but the effect is not stable over time.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Economics

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Moreover, the study done by Kim(1983) also proves that there is a size related anomaly and its seasonality. Kim(1983) founds around fifty percent of abnormal returns related to firm size are earned in January, twenty-six percent are earned during the first trading week in a year and around eleven percent are earned in the first trading day. Small firm effect in different equity market The study done by Reengaging (1990) found that the relative price behaviors of larger and smaller firms on ETC stocks are different.

The costs of trading for small stocks are different in different markets (Reengaging 1990). Thus, an analysis of the evidence for small firm effect in different equity market is important. Small firm effect not only happens in USA but also in the other countries. It has been proved existence in Australia by Brown, Kim, Klein and Marsh (1983). Furthermore, a study done by Chemung, Lounge and Wong (1994) on Korean Stock Exchange also proves the existence of small firm effect.

In mean return analysis, the study shows the portfolio with smallest firm size got the highest average monthly return (Chemung, Lounge and Wong 1994). In risk-adjusted return analysis, they use the Sharpe-Lintier version of the two parameter assets pricing model to examine the influence of firm size and E/P ratio on the risk-adjusted portfolio returns (Chemung, Lounge and Wong 1994). The result shows the portfolio of small firms get the highest and only positive risk-adjusted returns (Chemung, Lounge and Wong 1994).

Moreover, the small firm effect also exists in Belgium, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom (Hawaiian and Kim 2000). However, there are no significant relationships between firms’ size and returns in Canada and France and the size premium significantly different in different markets (Hawaiian and Kim 2000). Small firm effect in different time The researches done by Brown, Klein and Marsh (2001) on U. S. Stock market shows hat excess returns can be earned in related to firm size but the effect is not stable over time.

Damson and Marsh (2001) believe that market anomalies apply to Murphy’s Law which if things can go wrong, it will eventually go wrong. That is, the excess return of small companies will eventually move towards reverse. They compared the stock return of small firms in the U. K. Stock markets with that in the U. S. Stock markets from 1955 to 1997. The study shows the stock returns of small firms were 6% higher than large firms during 1955 to 1986 then many founds Management

Company launched between 1987 and 1988, followed a reverse on stock returns of small firms were 6% lower than the large firms from 1989 to 1997 (Damson and Marsh 2001). This may also be contradicts for the small firm effect. Reasons for existence of small firm effect Misprinting Some researchers explained the small firm effect as misprinting from the measurement or method error of assets price model, but Roll (1983) finds this is not the case. He believed that the frequency of trading and holding period can affect the beta estimates.

The risks of small firm were undervalued and returns were overvalued for small firms in short holding period (Roll 1983). Furthermore, as small firms are traded not often, the daily stock returns were delayed, the risk was undervalued (Roll 1983). However, Reengaging (1982) use the method of aggregated coefficients to estimate the stock risks and finds undervalue of risks for small firms is not a strong evidence for small firm effect. The study done by Fame and French (1992) also shows firm size is better at explaining the excess returns on small firm than stock risks.

Transaction cost The transaction cost for small firms are usually higher than that for large firms. Transaction cost includes direct cost and indirect cost. Indirect cost includes brokerage fees and bid-ask spread. Indirect costs include fees generated by information searching and portfolio management. Amid and Mendelssohn (1986) regard the bid-ask spread as representative of stock trading frequency. Larger bid- ask spread means market thinness. Then they built three models to test the relationship among stock returns, risk of stocks and bid-ask spread.

The result shows relationship between stock returns and bid-ask spread are significant stronger than allegations between stock returns and risk of stocks at explaining the small firm effect (Amid and Mendelssohn 1986). Furthermore, Amid (2002) believed that expected market liquidity has a positive influence on ex-ante excess stock returns and return on stock is negatively related over time to contemporaneous unexpected liquidity. Liquidity has stronger influence on small firms (Amid 2002).

Amid proved his hypothesis by examine stock in NYSE from 1964 to 1997. Less available information The third reason of existence of small firm effect is small firm has less available information. Theoretical research has proved that firms with less available information should, other variable remain unchanged, get higher returns to make up estimation risk (Manhattans). Thus, less average available information for small firms may be the reason of small firm effect. Nathan (1996) proved this hypothesis in his article.

Different fundamental structure Different fundamental structure between large firms and small firms may be one of the reasons for small firm effect. Small firms in NYSE are less efficiently run and have higher financial leverage and these kinds of risks are not easy to be captured by arrest index compare to large firms (Chain and Chem. 1991). Thus the small firm should get higher stock return to make up the estimation risk. Exploit ability and limitation of profit-earning strategy This essay believes that small firm effect is not exploitable now.

Somebody may argue that profit can be earned by taking long positions in a portfolio of smaller firms and taking short position in a portfolio of larger firms. In fact, it is hard to keep a portfolio with small shares which long and short position can be held and traded quickly in the real world (Bradford, Haney and Billion 2011). Furthermore, the transaction cost of take short position is larger than take long position (Bradford, Haney and Billion 2011).

Moreover, the article written by Damson and Marsh (2001) points out excess return of small companies will eventually move towards reverse and their study shows stock returns of small firms were 6% lower than the large firms from 1989 to 1997 which indicate the small firm effect already move towards reverse in U. K.. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay does not recommend the fund manager use strategy of taking long positions in a portfolio of smaller firms and taking short position in a oratorio of larger firms to exploit as loss may occur.