Abstract
Using an extensive Australian sample, we explore two related issues in the context of a default risk asset-pricing factor (DEF) over the business cycle: (a) whether a DEF can explain the size premium in the three-factor Fama-French (FF) model; and (b) whether a DEF has a separate role itself in a four-factor version of the FF model. While we find that the default factor does not explain the success of size, our evidence shows it has a complementary role to small minus big and high minus low. Notably, subgroups of test portfolios likely to seriously challenge any asset-pricing model show evidence that the four-factor model is not perfect. Finally, while we find that conditioning on the business cycle itself has little impact, when we condition on a leading indicator, it has a positive (negative) effect on the estimated default (market) risk premium.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 217-246 |
| Number of pages | 30 |
| Journal | Australian Journal of Management |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |
Keywords
- business cycles
- equity