Skip to main content
Log in

Common risk factors in international stock markets

  • Published:
Financial Markets and Portfolio Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major obstacle for research in international asset pricing and corporate finance has been a lack of reliable and publicly available data on international common risk factors and portfolios. To address this gap, we provide a step-by-step description of how appropriately screened data from Thomson Reuters Datastream and Thomson Reuters Worldscope can be used to construct high-quality systematic risk factors. We provide common risk factors for 23 countries across the globe. To demonstrate the use of this dataset, we present evidence of an “extreme” size premium in a large number of countries. These premia, however, are often not realizable or at least significantly eroded due to transaction costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an application of the Carhart (1997) four-factor model, see Asness et al. (2013) for example.

  2. Some studies use proprietary, country-specific datasets which are in general inaccessible to other researchers, while other studies compile datasets from various sources. Griffin (2002), for example, uses data from the Pacific-Basin Capital Markets database (Japan), TRD (U.K. and Canada) and CRSP/COMPUSTAT (USA). Schrimpf et al. (2007) and Ziegler et al. (2007) use a database maintained at Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. Further country-specific studies include Ammann and Steiner (2008) (Switzerland), Artmann et al. (2012) (Germany), Dimson et al. (2003), Gregory et al. (2009), Nagel (2001) (all three U.K.). Additional examples of studies that have employed non-US data to study empirical asset pricing models include, besides the studies already mentioned, An and Ng (2010), Ang et al. (2009), Asness and Frazzini (2013), Bauer et al. (2010), Eun et al. (2010), Fama and French (1998, 2012), Ferreira et al. (2013), Heston et al. (1999), Hou et al. (2011), Leippold and Lohre (2012a, b), Liew and Vassalou (2000), and Rouwenhorst (1998). In several cases, the constructed risk factors are not available to other researchers, though there are also important exceptions. Fama and French (2012) and Asness and Frazzini (2013) provide their international risk factor data as well. Different from this paper, Fama and French (2012) employ factors on the regional level, whereas we employ factors on the country level. Asness and Frazzini (2013) focus on the construction of the HML factors, whereas our focus is on data issues in general.

  3. Since the circulation of the first version of this paper in 2011, our factors have been employed by several researchers, and we thank them for providing us with valuable feedback. Brückner et al. (2015) compare our factors for Germany with datasets from other sources. Although our factor data naturally cannot address some aspects that only specialized, partly hand-collected data from dedicated country-specific research can address, our data seem to perform quite well relative to other datasets with an international scope.

  4. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html.

  5. For a recent overview of the topic see, for example, Van Dijk (2011).

  6. Using the equity type in TRD (EQ) should generally correspond to sharecodes 10 and 11 in CRSP. However, this correspondence is far from perfect; therefore, we conduct additional screens to ensure that the selected stocks are common equity. For details on this issue, see Ince and Porter (2006, pp. 466, 471).

  7. For example, when constructing operating profitability, the underlying characteristic for RMW, we set missing sales, costs of goods sold, selling or administrative expenses and research & development expenses values equal to zero. To the extent that the database used in the FF dataset contains different values for these or other datapoints, this will induce differences in the ultimate results. If we leave aside R&D expenses completely, the correlation for RMW is 0.81.

  8. Although a few markets seem to have a broad coverage back to 1986, most markets are covered much better a few years later. To report results as uniformly as possible for all markets considered, we choose 07/1989 as the start date when possible. Exemptions are indicated in Table 2.

  9. The Swiss Performance index (SPI), the Warsaw General Index (WGI), The Share Index of the Budapest Stock Exchange (BUX), and the Slovak Share Index (SAX) include dividend payments by construction. Furthermore, we use total return indexes for the following countries: Australia (both periods), Austria (short period), Canada (both periods), Denmark (short period), Finland (short period), France (both periods), Germany (short period), Hong Kong (short period), Ireland (both periods), Italy (short period), Japan (both periods), Netherlands (both periods), Norway (short period), Portugal (both periods), Singapore (both periods), Spain (short period), Sweden (short period), Turkey (both periods), U.K. (both periods), USA (both periods), Luxembourg (second period), Greece (both periods), Hungary (both periods), and Czech Republic (both periods). All other indexes are pure price indexes.

  10. We suspect that the relatively low correlation of our indexes with the comparison indexes for Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Iceland can be explained by the fact that companies which have an influence on the respective local market returns are nevertheless so small that they are not sufficiently covered by TRD and TRW. For example, a closer examination reveals that over 50% (in terms of the market capitalization) of the SAX is not covered by TRD data when we try to find the corresponding companies in April 2001 (according to Bratislava Stock Exchange 2001) within our TRD and TRW data. Most companies are not covered by TRW, others are covered by TRW, but TRD provides no market data or the stocks are excluded by one of our screens.

  11. Note that NYSE breakpoints may result in a very uneven distribution of stocks across the different portfolio groups.

  12. By referring to equal breakpoints, we construct decile or quintile sorts by constructing groups with an approximate equal size. For a detailed account, see section A.2.2 in the Online Appendix.

  13. We only report results with factors using approximate NYSE breakpoints (columns (1)–(6)) where enough stocks are available to conduct meaningful factors for a given country sample. For most of the countries not reported a portfolio sort into six portfolios—three BE/ME groups and two size groups independently—would produce empty or poorly diversified (dominated by one or two stocks) portfolios at some points of the time series.

  14. Deciles—whether with NYSE breakpoints or equal breakpoints—are unsuitable for this. For example, the number of Irish stocks is around 30–60 over the examined time period. Using the approach with approximate NYSE breakpoints would, therefore, imply that in the big size group there are around 1–3 stocks. This portfolio would be often dominated by one firm; or even be empty for some time periods. Even with equal breakpoints this portfolio would contain only 3–6 stocks. The 1–10 spread would therefore depend very much on 1–3 big firm(s), if it is even computable (and therefore not empty) for the time span considered. In addition, a similar, even worse, problem is present in case of the factor construction for these smaller countries.

  15. Fama (1998, p. 296) makes the case for using value-weighted returns. He argues that value-weighted returns capture more accurately the total wealth effects experienced by investors. Furthermore, he is concerned that using equal-weighted returns may amplify model problems. Novy-Marx and Velikov (2016, p. 106) are also concerned about the use of equal-weighted portfolios. They argue that equal-weighted portfolio strategies have generally two to three times higher transaction costs and are therefore often less profitable to implement.

  16. See Table A.12 of the Online Appendix.

  17. We correct the observed daily zero returns as reported by TRD following Appendix A of Lesmond et al. (1999) to obtain effective zero returns.

  18. For further details see Lesmond et al. (1999).

References

  • Ammann, M., Steiner, M.: Risk factors for the Swiss stock market. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 144, 1–25 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, J., Ng, D.T.: Long-run risks and value premium: the international evidence. Working Paper, Cornell University (2010)

  • Ang, A., Hodrick, R.J., Xing, Y., Zhang, X.: High idiosyncratic volatility and low returns: international and further U.S. evidence. J. Financ. Econ. 91(1), 1–23 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artmann, S., Finter, P., Kempf, A., Koch, S., Theissen, E.: The cross-section of German stock returns: new data and new evidence. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 64, 20–43 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asness, C., Frazzini, A.: The devil in HML’s details. J. Portf. Manag. 39, 49–68 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asness, C.S., Moskowitz, T.J., Pedersen, L.H.: Value and momentum everywhere. J. Finance 68(3), 929–985 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banz, R.W.: The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. J. Financ. Econ. 9(1), 3–18 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, R., Cosemans, M., Schotman, P.C.: Conditional asset pricing and stock market anomalies in Europe. Eur. Financ. Manag. 16(2), 165–190 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratislava Stock Exchange: Monthly statistics—July 2001 (2001)

  • Brown, P., Kleidon, A.W., Marsh, T.A.: New evidence on the nature of size-related anomalies in stock prices. J. Financ. Econ. 12(1), 33–56 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brückner, R., Lehmann, P., Schmidt, M.H., Stehle, R.: Non-U.S. multi-factor data sets should be used with caution. Working paper, Humboldt University Berlin (2015)

  • Carhart, M.M.: On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52(1), 57–82 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, J.: Asset Pricing, revised edn. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Moor, L., Sercu, P.: The smallest firm effect: an international study. J. Int. Money Finance 32, 129–155 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E., Marsh, P.: Murphy’s law and market anomalies. J. Portf. Manag. 25(2), 53–69 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimson, E., Nagel, S., Quigley, G.: Capturing the value premium in the United Kingdom. Financ. Anal. J. 59(6), 35–45 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eun, C.S., Lai, S., de Roon, F.A., Zhang, Z.: International diversification with factor funds. Manag. Sci. 56(9), 1500–1518 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F.: Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance. J. Financ. Econ. 49(3), 283–306 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: The cross-section of expected stock returns. J. Finance 47(2), 427–465 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 33(1), 3–56 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Value versus growth: the international evidence. J. Finance 53(6), 1975–1999 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Dissecting anomalies. J. Finance 63(4), 1653–1678 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Size, value, and momentum in international stock returns. J. Financ. Econ. 105(3), 457–472 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: A five-factor asset pricing model. J. Financ. Econ. 116(1), 1–22 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M.A., Keswani, A., Miguel, A.F., Ramos, S.B.: The determinants of mutual fund performance: a cross-country study. Rev. Finance 17(2), 483–525 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyenko, R.Y., Holden, C.W., Trzcinka, C.A.: Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? J. Financ. Econ. 92(2), 153–181 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, A., Tharyan, R., Huang, A.: The Fama-French and momentum portfolios and factors in the UK. Working Paper, University of Exeter (2009)

  • Griffin, J.M.: Are the Fama and French factors global or country specific? Rev. Financ. Stud. 15(3), 783–803 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heston, S.L., Rouwenhorst, K.G., Wessels, R.E.: The role of beta and size in the cross-section of European stock returns. Eur. Financ. Manag. 5(1), 9–27 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, K., Karolyi, G.A., Kho, B.-C.: What factors drive global stock returns? Rev. Financ. Stud. 24(8), 2527–2574 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, K., van Dijk, M.A.: Resurrecting the size effect: firm size, profitability shocks, and expected stock returns. Rev. Financ. Stud. 32(7), 2850–2889 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, K., Xue, C., Zhang, L.: Digesting anomalies: an investment approach. Rev. Financ. Stud. 28(3), 650–705 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ince, O., Porter, R.: Individual equity return data from Thomson datastream: handle with care!. J. Financ. Res. 29(4), 463–479 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N., Titman, S.: Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. J. Finance 48(1), 65–91 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, D.B.: Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality: further empirical evidence. J. Financ. Econ. 12(1), 13–32 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, S., Shanken, J., Sloan, R.: Another look at the cross-section of expected stock returns. J. Finance 50, 185–224 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leippold, M., Lohre, H.: Data snooping and the global accrual anomaly. Appl. Financ. Econ. 22(7), 509–535 (2012a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leippold, M., Lohre, H.: International price and earnings momentum. Eur. J. Finance 18(6), 535–573 (2012b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesmond, D.A., Ogden, J.P., Trzcinka, C.A.: A new estimate of transaction costs. Rev. Financ. Stud. 12(5), 1113–1141 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liew, J., Vassalou, M.: Can book-to-market, size and momentum be risk factors that predict economic growth? J. Financ. Econ. 57(2), 221–245 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, A.W., MacKinlay, A.C.: Data-snooping biases in tests of financial asset pricing models. Rev. Financ. Stud. 3(3), 431–467 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinlay, A.C.: Multifactor models do not explain deviations from the CAPM. J. Financ. Econ. 38(1), 3–28 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S.: Accounting information free of selection bias: a new UK database 1953–1999. Working paper, London Business School (2001)

  • Newey, W.K., West, K.D.: A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55(3), 703–708 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novy-Marx, R., Velikov, M.: A taxonomy of anomalies and their trading costs. Rev. Financ. Stud. 29(1), 104–147 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwenhorst, K.G.: International momentum strategies. J. Finance 53(1), 267–284 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf, A., Schröder, M., Stehle, R.: Cross-sectional tests of conditional asset pricing models: evidence from the German stock market. Eur. Financ. Manag. 13(5), 880–907 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwert, G.W.: Anomalies and market efficiency. In: Constantinides, G., Harris, M., Stulz, R. (eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Finance. Financial Markets and Asset Pricing, Chapter 15, vol. 1, pp. 939–974. Elsevier, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, M.: Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns. J. Bank. Finance 35, 3263–3274 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A., Schröder, M., Schulz, A., Stehle, R.: Multifaktormodelle zur Erklärung deutscher Aktienrenditen: Eine empirische Analyse. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 59(3), 355–389 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was previously circulated under the title ‘On the Construction of Common Size, Value and Momentum Factors in International Stock Markets: A Guide with Applications’. We thank the Editor (Markus Schmid) and an anonymous Referee for valuable suggestions. Furthermore, we are grateful to Harald Lohre for useful comments and suggestions at the beginning of our project. Helpful research assistance of Katja Bächtold, Pascal Bücheler, Carolin Hecht, Roman Ogi, Marco Rudin and Veronika Sharonova is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to Tatjana-Xenia Puhan, who helped us to expand the dataset to additional countries and to Philip Valta, who supported the project while Peter S. Schmidt was at the University of Bern. Moreover, we thank Ryan Banerjee, as well as all researchers who contacted us regarding the data set. Their comments helped to improve the data set as well as the paper at hand. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation [Project 10CL14-120387]; the Commission for Technology and Innovation of the Swiss Confederation (CTI) [Project 10603.2 PFES-ES]; the Swiss Finance Institute; the NCCR FINRISK [Project B1: Corporate Finance, Market Structure and the Theory of the Firm]; and the Zurich Cantonal Bank (ZKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter S. Schmidt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 2723 KB)

A Appendix

A Appendix

1.1 A.1 Transaction cost estimation

This section explains the trading cost measure employed in Sect. 3.2 in greater detail.

Lesmond et al. (1999) propose a trading costs measure which is based on daily data. They assume that informed trading occurs on nonzero trading days and zero trading days indicate the absence of informed trading (Goyenko et al. 2009).Footnote 17

Lesmond et al. (1999) propose a limited dependent variable (LDV) model as follows. First, they model the true (unobserved) returns for each firm j, \(R_{jt}^{*}\) as a linear function of the market returns \(R_{mt}\):

$$\begin{aligned} R_{jt}^{*} = \beta _j R_{mt} + \varepsilon _{jt}, \end{aligned}$$
(A.1)

where \(\beta _j\) denotes the market beta for each firm, and \(\varepsilon _{jt}\) an error term with zero expectation and a constant variance \(\sigma ^2_j\).

Second, they distinguish three cases to relate the measured returns \(R_{jt}\) to the true returns:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{ll} R_{jt} = R_{jt}^{*} - \alpha _{1j} &{}\quad \text { if } \,\, R_{jt}^{*}< \alpha _{1j} \\ R_{jt} = 0 &{}\quad \text { if } \,\, \alpha _{1j}< R_{jt}^{*} < \alpha _{2j} \\ R_{jt} = R_{jt}^{*} - \alpha _{2j} &{}\quad \text { if } \,\, R_{jt}^{*} > \alpha _{2j}. \end{array} \end{aligned}$$
(A.2)

Therefore, a nonzero return is only observed if either the true return is smaller than the threshold for negative information \(\alpha _{1j}\) or bigger than the threshold for positive information \(\alpha _{2j}\). To obtain estimates for this model, one has to maximize the following log-likelihood function:Footnote 18

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \ln {{\mathcal {L}}}&= -\sum _{R_{jt}<0} \ln (2\pi \sigma ^2_j)/2 -\sum _{R_{jt}<0} \frac{1}{2\sigma ^2_j}(R_{jt}+\alpha _{1j}-\beta _j \cdot R_{mt})^2 \\&\quad -\,\sum _{R_{jt}>0} \ln (2\pi \sigma ^2_j)/2 -\sum _{R_{jt}>0} \frac{1}{2\sigma ^2_j}(R_{jt}+\alpha _{2j}-\beta _j \cdot R_{mt})^2 \\&\quad +\,\sum _{R_{jt}=0} \ln \left( \Phi \left( \frac{\alpha _{2j}-\beta _j \cdot R_{mt}}{\sigma _j}\right) - \Phi \left( \frac{\alpha _{1j}-\beta _j \cdot R_{mt}}{\sigma _j}\right) \right) . \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(A.3)

Here, \(\Phi \) denotes the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution. The parameters are estimated by maximizing the log-likelihood function in Eq. (A.3). We impose the following condition: \(\alpha _{1j}<0\); \(\alpha _{2j}>0\) and \(\sigma _j>0\). Note that the three different regions used in this expression are different than in Lesmond et al. (1999). Whereas in the original paper this regions are selected based on the market returns, we select these three regions based on the firm returns, as suggested by Goyenko et al. (2009).

To estimate trading costs, we use half of the estimated round-trip trading costs for each trade: \(\frac{\alpha _{2j}-\alpha _{1j}}{2}\).

We estimate the LDV model for all stocks available on the daily TRD files. We use at least four years of daily observations to obtain a trading cost measure for each year. In addition to the daily observations of the year for which the trading costs are estimated, we use all daily observations of the 2 years before and after that year. Like suggested by Lesmond et al. (1999), we use the EW market return as a market return proxy. We assume that trading costs incur whenever a stock enters or leaves a portfolio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmidt, P.S., von Arx, U., Schrimpf, A. et al. Common risk factors in international stock markets. Financ Mark Portf Manag 33, 213–241 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11408-019-00334-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11408-019-00334-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation