Firm-specific News and Anomalies

This study investigates the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future returns around the firm-specific news announcements in the Korean stock market from July 1995 to June 2018. The excess returns of decile portfolios that are formed by sorting the stocks based on news and non-news idiosyncratic volatility measures. The Fama and French three-factor model is also examined to see whether systematic risk affects news and non-news idiosyncratic volatility profits. The pricing of our news and non-news idiosyncratic volatility are confirmed in the cross-sectional regression using the Fama and MacBeth method. Market beta, size, book to market, momentum, liquidity, and maximum return are controlled to determine robustness. Our empirical evidence suggests that the pricing of the non-news idiosyncratic volatility is more strongly negative compared to the news idiosyncratic volatility, which is contrary to the limited arbitrage explanation for the negative price of the idiosyncratic volatility. We find that the non-news idiosyncratic volatility has a robust negative relation to returns in non-January months. Macro-finance factors drive the conditioned on the missing risk factor hypothesis, the pricing of idiosyncratic volatility. This study contributes to a better understanding of the role of the conditional idiosyncratic volatility in asset pricing. As the Korean stocks provide a fresh sample, our non-U.S. investigation delivers a useful out-of-sample test on the pervasiveness of the non-news volatility effect across the emerging markets.

What Do Deviations from Covered Interest Parity and Higher FX Hedging Costs Mean for Asia

Asian countries have high demand for U.S. dollars and are sensitive to U.S. dollar funding costs. An important, but often overlooked, component of these costs is the basis spread in the cross-currency swap market that emerges when there are deviations from covered interest parity (CIP). CIP deviations mean that investors need to pay a premium to borrow U.S. dollars or other currencies on a hedged basis via cross-currency swap markets. These deviations can be explained by regulatory changes since the global financial crisis, which have limited arbitrage opportunities and country-specific factors that contribute to a mismatch in the demand and supply of U.S. dollars. We find that an increase in the basis spread tightens financial conditions in net debtor countries, while easing financial conditions in net creditor countries. The main reason is that net debtor countries are, in general, unable to substitute smoothly to other domestic funding channels. Policies that promote reliable alternative funding sources, such as long-term corporate bond market or stable long-term investors, including a “hedging counterpart of last resort,” can help stabilize financial intermediation when U.S. dollar funding markets come under stress.

Negative Swap Spreads and Limited Arbitrage

Since October 2008, fixed rates for interest rate swaps with a 30-year maturity have been mostly below Treasury rates with the same maturity. Under standard assumptions, this implies the existence of arbitrage opportunities. This paper presents a model for pricing interest rate swaps, where frictions for holding bonds limit arbitrage. I analytically show that negative swap spreads should not be surprising. In the calibrated model, swap spreads can reasonably match empirical counterparts without the need for large demand imbalances in the swap market. Empirical evidence is consistent with the relation between term spreads and swap spreads in the model. Received April 16, 2017; editorial decision Januray 3, 2019 by Editor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh.