China's rapid economic growth and the development of its domestic stock market have attracted considerable attention from foreign investors. China's economic financial expansion, however, has emerged from an environment of state planning and radical socialist ideology. With a view of providing investors with a better understanding of the risk and return relationship in the Chinese A-share market over the past decade, this thesis adapts several empirical models to the circumstances in China and conducts four empirical analyses. First, in order to rationalize foreign investors' entry into the A-share market, the thesis compares the diversification benefits in three China-related stock markets, namely the A-share, the B-share and the H-share markets in a mean-variance framework using daily, weekly and monthly data respectively. The results suggest that of the three stock markets, the B-share market generates the highest average annual returns while the A-share market has the most significant diversification benefits regardless of whether the analysis is undertaken implementing a traditional mean-variance framework or a downside risk framework. Next, an empirical analysis using the Fama and MacBeth two-pass procedure is undertaken to test the relationship between beta, firm factors and stock returns. Similar to the findings in other stock markets, the results of this analysis show that the static betas for individual stocks fail to capture variation in stock returns in the A-share market. In contrast, the effects of book-to-market and trading volume are significant in the sample period. However, the fact that none of these factors have a persistent role in explaining stock returns suggests a possible change in the investment philosophy of Chinese domestic investors over the past decade. In the third analysis, two global betas are incorporated into the cross-sectional regressions in a bid to examine the integration or segmentation of the A-share market with the world and Hong Kong stock markets. Specifically, both time-varying betas and static betas are used in the analysis. The results suggest that there is no beta effect and the A-share marke t is totally segmented from both the world and Hong Kong stock markets. Finally, when the segmentation and integration status of the A-share market is further examined using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation framework without beta estimation and the assumption of a linear relationship between beta and stock returns, the findings suggest that the A-share market is becoming increasing integrated with the B-share and the Hong Kong stock markets.

China's rapid economic growth and the development of its domestic stock market have attracted considerable attention from foreign investors. China's economic financial expansion, however, has emerged from an environment of state planning and radical socialist ideology. With a view of providing investors with a better understanding of the risk and return relationship in the Chinese A-share market over the past decade, this thesis adapts several empirical models to the circumstances in China and conducts four empirical analyses. First, in order to rationalize foreign investors' entry into the A-share market, the thesis compares the diversification benefits in three China-related stock markets, namely the A-share, the B-share and the H-share markets in a mean-variance framework using daily, weekly and monthly data respectively. The results suggest that of the three stock markets, the B-share market generates the highest average annual returns while the A-share market has the most significant diversification benefits regardless of whether the analysis is undertaken implementing a traditional mean-variance framework or a downside risk framework. Next, an empirical analysis using the Fama and MacBeth two-pass procedure is undertaken to test the relationship between beta, firm factors and stock returns. Similar to the findings in other stock markets, the results of this analysis show that the static betas for individual stocks fail to capture variation in stock returns in the A-share market. In contrast, the effects of book-to-market and trading volume are significant in the sample period. However, the fact that none of these factors have a persistent role in explaining stock returns suggests a possible change in the investment philosophy of Chinese domestic investors over the past decade. In the third analysis, two global betas are incorporated into the cross-sectional regressions in a bid to examine the integration or segmentation of the A-share market with the world and Hong Kong stock markets. Specifically, both time-varying betas and static betas are used in the analysis. The results suggest that there is no beta effect and the A-share marke t is totally segmented from both the world and Hong Kong stock markets. Finally, when the segmentation and integration status of the A-share market is further examined using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation framework without beta estimation and the assumption of a linear relationship between beta and stock returns, the findings suggest that the A-share market is becoming increasing integrated with the B-share and the Hong Kong stock markets.

Abstract Mutual fund, which has become a popular domestic investment tool possess a lot of advantages. However, how on earth investors could choose the fund that worth investing is often confusing. This research begins from the qualities of mutual fund itself and it¡¦s manager. I¡¦ll discuss the influence that the type of fund, achievement in the past, scale of fund, turnover rate, risks and investors¡¦ age, sex, schooling record and experiences would have on its achievement. Hoping through these different sides of thinking would provide a direction for investors when choosing Mutual fund. This research was done in the period from January, 1997 to January, 2002, after excluding some of the survivorship bias, we sift through the whole information in the five years, and we acquire 59 open type that would be used as sample fund in this research. We adopt Jensen-performance-estimated model and 4-factor model as achievement measure standard. By setting tests of Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Durbin-Watson, plus OLS, we estate mate Jensen-performance-estimated model and 4-factor model, and the result of its alpha would be cross-analyzed with the multiple linear regression model, thus we¡¦ll clearly see the relation of quality between mutual fund and their managers. Before going on the cross-analysis, in order to seek for the best estimating method, we test heteroscedasticity by residual pattern and Breusch-Pagan Test. Since it comes out there is no heteroscedasticity, we still conduct the process by OLS to observe how the relation between the qualities of mutual fund itself and that of managers will affect on fund achievement. We found 4-factor model is more convincing among all other achievement evaluation model though the results vary from types of model. In the achievement index, a positive and remarkable difference type of fund is from Jensen index,, which coincided with Dahlquist, Engstrom, and Soderlind(2000)¡BJia-ling Hong(2000). Under 4-factor model, global fund and region ones appear obvious negative related, but high-tech types and general are not convincing at all. Besides, the influence of reward in the past and the scale of it shows the conclusion that two model are related positively in achievement side of short and long term, but negative in scale. Moreover, the risks can¡¦t explain the achievement difference, and turnover-rate doesn¡¦t affect achievement directly, the outcome coincided with the prove of Ippolito(1989) . Finally, which this research shows that the types results vary from managers personal qualities, but most of them can¡¦t explain the achievement differences. We only catch that under Jensen index, managers who get their MBA degree abroad tends to have positive relation in achievement of fund.

Prior research finds that mutual fund investors have adequate ability to select funds which superior performance remains persistent. Following the work of Keswani and Stolin (2008), we use a fund netflow as a proxy for investors¡¦ preference to examine whether the smart money effect exists. Furthermore, this paper differs from prior research by combining the smart money phenomenon and fund firm¡¦s marketing activities (the advertising expenditure of mutual funds). This paper generates four empirical findings. (1) Mutual funds with positive netflow subsequently have positive Carhart four-factor alpha, that is, the ¡§smart money effect¡¨ exists in Taiwanese mutual fund market. (2) The smart money effect is caused by investors¡¦ buying decisions. (3) The smart money effect is only a short-lived phenomenon. (4) Our evidence shows that advertising of funds can explain the smart money effect in Taiwanese open-end mutual fund market.

Investing has become increasingly popular among individuals in recent years,this has led to multiple investing strategies formalizing. One of them being factorinvesting, a strategy where investors search for companies with certain strongfirm specific financial metrics through screening. Many researchers try to findwhich these metrics are, and which of them has an effect on the cross-sections ofstock returns. This study examines the relationship between the three metrics,earnings-to-price, dividend yield, debt over equity and the European stock marketbetween January 2010 to December 2022. This is done by using the two-stageregression model suggested by Fama and Macbeth (1973). Our results show thatthere is an anomaly in the European stock market and that there is a firmcharacteristic risk associated with these metrics. This suggests that when lookingat individual firms, investors are willing to pay a premium for the metrics studiedin this paper and it is therefore important to take them into account whenscreening for individual companies. As the previous research is mainly focusedon the American stock market and emerging markets in Europe, our thesis fills agap by providing a view on factor premiums in the European market as a whole.

Denna studie undersöker om periodiseringskvalitet är en prissatt riskfaktor för nordiska företag som är noterade på en reglerad marknad under perioden 2010–2019. Tidigare studier menar att periodiseringskvalitet utgör en proxy för informationsrisk, men olika författare framställer olika slutsatser i frågan huruvida periodiserings­kvalitet är en prissatt riskfaktor eller inte. Med den av McNichols (2002) modifierade Dechow & Dichev modellen (2002) mäter vi periodiseringskvalitet som standard­avvikelsen av residualer från regressioner som kopplar periodiseringar till kassaflöden. Vi mäter riskpremien genom att dela in företagen i kvintiler baserad på periodiseringskvalitet och tillämpar en likaviktad portfölj som säljer företagen i de två kvintilerna med högst periodiseringskvalitet och köper företagen i kvintilerna med lägst periodiseringskvalitet. Vi finner en signifikant negativ koefficient i en två-stegs tvärsnittsregressionen som visar att periodiseringskvalitet inte utgör en prissatt riskfaktor för nordiska företag. / This study investigates if accruals quality is a priced risk factor for Nordic countries being traded on a regulated market in the Nordic countries during 2010–2019. Earlier studies argue that accruals quality is a proxy for information risk, but different authors find different results regarding whether accruals quality is a priced risk factor or not. By using the Dechow & Dichev model (2002), modified by McNichols (2002), we measure accruals quality as the standard deviation of regressions that match accruals to cash flow. We measure the risk premium by dividing the entities into quintiles and use an equal-weighted portfolio that sells the stocks in the two quintiles with the highest accruals quality and buys the two quintiles with the lowest accruals quality. We find a significant negative coefficient in a two-stage cross-sectional regression which shows that accruals quality is not a priced risk factor in the Nordic countries.

<p>The cross-sectional variation of stock returns used to be described by the Capital Asset Pricing Model until the early 90‟s. Anomalies, such as, book-to-market effect and small firm effect undermined CAPM‟s ability to explain stock returns and Fama & French (1992) have shown that simple firm attributes, like, firm size and book-to-market value can explain the returns far better than Beta. Following Fama & French many other researchers examine the explanatory powers of CAPM and other asset pricing models. However, most of those studies use US data. There are some researches done in different countries than US, however more out-of-sample studies need to be conducted.</p><p>To our knowledge there are very few studies using the Swedish data and this thesis contributes to that small pool of studies. Moreover, the studies testing the CAPM use the unconditional version of the model. There are some papers suggesting the use of a conditional CAPM that would exhibit better explanatory powers than the unconditional CAPM. Different ways of conditioning the CAPM have been proposed, but one that we think is the least complex and possible to make use of in the business world is the dual-beta model. This conditional CAPM assumes a different relationship between beta and stock returns during the up markets and down markets. Furthermore, the model has not thoroughly been tested outside the US. Our study is the first to use the dual-beta model in Sweden. In addition, the momentum effect has lately been given some attention and Fama & French‟s (1993) three factor model has not been able to explain the abnormal returns related to that anomaly. We test the Fama & French three factor model, CAPM and Carhart‟s four factor model‟s explanatory abilities of the momentum effect using Swedish stock returns. Ultimately, our aim is to find the best model that describes stock return cross-section on the Stockholm Stock Exchange.</p><p>We use returns of all the non-financial firms listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange between September, 1997 and April, 2010. The number of companies included in our time sample is 366. The results of our tests indicate that the small firm effect, book-to-market effect and the momentum effect are not present on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Consequently, the CAPM emerges as the one model that explains stock return cross-section better than the other models suggesting that Beta is still a proper measure of risk. Furthermore, the conditional version of CAPM describes the stock return variation far better than the unconditional CAPM. This implies using different Betas to estimate risk during up market conditions and down market conditions.</p>

The cross-sectional variation of stock returns used to be described by the Capital Asset Pricing Model until the early 90‟s. Anomalies, such as, book-to-market effect and small firm effect undermined CAPM‟s ability to explain stock returns and Fama &amp; French (1992) have shown that simple firm attributes, like, firm size and book-to-market value can explain the returns far better than Beta. Following Fama &amp; French many other researchers examine the explanatory powers of CAPM and other asset pricing models. However, most of those studies use US data. There are some researches done in different countries than US, however more out-of-sample studies need to be conducted. To our knowledge there are very few studies using the Swedish data and this thesis contributes to that small pool of studies. Moreover, the studies testing the CAPM use the unconditional version of the model. There are some papers suggesting the use of a conditional CAPM that would exhibit better explanatory powers than the unconditional CAPM. Different ways of conditioning the CAPM have been proposed, but one that we think is the least complex and possible to make use of in the business world is the dual-beta model. This conditional CAPM assumes a different relationship between beta and stock returns during the up markets and down markets. Furthermore, the model has not thoroughly been tested outside the US. Our study is the first to use the dual-beta model in Sweden. In addition, the momentum effect has lately been given some attention and Fama &amp; French‟s (1993) three factor model has not been able to explain the abnormal returns related to that anomaly. We test the Fama &amp; French three factor model, CAPM and Carhart‟s four factor model‟s explanatory abilities of the momentum effect using Swedish stock returns. Ultimately, our aim is to find the best model that describes stock return cross-section on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. We use returns of all the non-financial firms listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange between September, 1997 and April, 2010. The number of companies included in our time sample is 366. The results of our tests indicate that the small firm effect, book-to-market effect and the momentum effect are not present on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Consequently, the CAPM emerges as the one model that explains stock return cross-section better than the other models suggesting that Beta is still a proper measure of risk. Furthermore, the conditional version of CAPM describes the stock return variation far better than the unconditional CAPM. This implies using different Betas to estimate risk during up market conditions and down market conditions.

資本資產定價模型已被廣泛使用於分析股票風險與要求報酬率之間的關係。然而，個別股票風險Beta是否足以解釋其報酬，也受到愈來愈多的質疑。Fama和French在1993年提出額外兩個因子來解釋股票報酬。我們將應用資本資產定價模型和三因子模型來分析1963年7月至2002年12月之美國的三大股票交易所上市公司。藉由一次改變分析過程中的一部分，以觀察參數估計值是否穩定。結果發現Beta_HML總是顯著且最為穩定，而Beta_SMB並不顯著。Beta經常顯著，但變動情況較大。另外，我們將考慮個別股票本身的變異，亦即將隨機效果納入考量。 / The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) has been widely used to analyze the relationship between risk and required rate of return on a stock, while it is doubted that individual stock's risk Beta has enough explanatory power for it's returns. Fama and French (1993) proposed two more factors to help explaining stock returns. We use the CAPM and the three-factor model to analyze listed companys in American stock exchanges, during the period from July 1963 to December 2002. We change part of the analyzing process a time to see if the estimates of the parameters are stable. The risk-premium Beta_HML is always significant and it performs most stable, while another risk-premium Beta_SMB is never significant. Beta is usually significant but it varies. Furthermore, we take within-stock variation into account, so random effects are considered.