Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor, Faculty of Economics, Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Ph.D. in Financial Economics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The negative correlation between an asset’s volatility and its return is known as leverage effect. This relationship is explained by the effect of a firm’s equity return on the degree of leverage in its capital structure. If this relationship holds, the increased volatility resulting from a fall in stock price should be comparable with the decreased volatility resulting from a price rise with the same magnitude, and this effect should also be persistent. Most research on the leverage effect has examined the relationship between the behavior of returns and return volatility. The present study aimed to examine the relationship between return volatility, returns, and the debt ratio. The data were collected from 22 biggest companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange for the period from March 2009 to March 2019. The value of debt in the capital structure of the selected companies was calculated using the Geske compound option pricing model.  According to the results, the existence of an asymmetric effect on returns only during bearish market conditions, alongside the instability of this effect, indicates that the debt ratio cannot explain the behavior of returns and return volatility.
1.Introduction
Extensive research on return volatility and its modeling reflects the considerable attention and importance this topic holds within various financial domains. The sheer number of scientific inquiries into volatility modeling and prediction underscores its significance in financial discourse, playing a pivotal role in both theoretical and empirical realms (Kambouroudis et al., 2021). Uncovering the influential factors affecting return volatility and gaining insights into their impact can contribute to a deeper understanding of return volatility. The leverage effect, which denotes the negative relationship between an asset’s return and its return volatility, suggests that as an asset’s return increases, its volatility decreases and vice versa. A common explanation attributes the divergent behavior of stock returns and return volatility to the debt ratio in a company’s capital structure  (Aït-Sahalia et al., 2013). When a company’s value increases, assuming the debt value remains stable, the relative return on equity will rise more than the overall company return because the total stock value is less than the total company value. Therefore, equity in a company with a higher debt ratio will exhibit greater volatility compared to the overall company, with this difference depending on the equity ratio in the company’s capital structure. This relationship with the debt ratio also leads to a systemic and inverse change in equity return volatility relative to its own return. When negative stock returns lead to a decrease in equity value relative to the fixed amount of debt, the debt ratio increases, resulting in an anticipated increase in stock volatility in the future. Conversely, positive stock returns are expected to have the opposite effect. The market value of a company’s equity affects the value of its debt. This research aimed to examine the ability of debt ration to explain the observed leverage effect. Therefore, accurately estimating the debt ratio and the value of the debt is crucial. In this line, the present inquiry investigated the relationship between stock return volatility and the debt ratio in the case of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.
2.Materials and Methods
This study used the model proposed by Figlewski and Wang (2000) in order to investigate the leverage effect. A distinctive aspect of the current research lies in the calculation of the debt value and the debt ratio using the Geske compound options pricing model (Geske, 1979).
The sample of the study consisted of 22 non-banking companies selected from the top 30 listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Seven banking symbols and one symbol with insufficient information were excluded from the analysis. Banking symbols were excluded due to the unique nature of the banking business, which significantly influences debt performance (Damodaran, 2013). Data on prices, number of shares, and debt structure for these companies were systematically collected from 2009 to 2019. The study relied on quantile regression as the analytical approach. Quantile regression is particularly robust in scenarios where errors deviate from a normal distribution or outliers are present in the data. This method allows for model estimation without being constrained  by assumptions typical in ordinary regression, such as homoscedasticity and the influence of outliers on coefficient estimation.
3.Results and Discussion
If the leverage effect, characterized by the negative relationship between return volatility and stock returns, were solely due to returns influencing the debt ratio, one would expect this effect to be consistent across positive and negative returns. Additionally, assuming the effect of returns on the debt ratio remains stable over time, one would anticipate a stable effect on return volatility as well. The findings indicated asymmetric effects of returns on return volatility, with a notable difference between positive and negative returns. Moreover, over time, both the magnitude and significance of this effect diminish. Another objective was to explore the direct effect of the debt ratio on return volatility. Similar to the previous case, the data suggested differing effects of the debt ratio during upward and downward trends. When the debt ratio increases due to declining returns, there is a consistent relationship observed between return volatility and the debt ratio. Conversely, during upward trends, the relationship between the debt ratio and return volatility is inverse. Furthermore, in assessing the stability of the effect of debt ratio on return volatility, the coefficients of lagged debt ratios were not significant, with only the coefficient of the current period’s debt ratio showing meaningful impact over the study duration.
4.Conclusion
According to the results, if a leverage effect exists, it manifests primarily in bearish market conditions (associated with an increasing debt ratio), and this effect is not stable over time. Consequently, the debt ratio alone cannot fully explain the relationship between return behavior and return volatility.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Abunuri, E. & Motameni, M. (2006). Simultaneous analysis of leverage effect and volatility feedback effect in TSE. Journal of Economic Research, 76, 101-117. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.00398969.1385.41.5.2.3 [In Persian].
Abunuri, E. & Motameni, M. (2007). Investigation of leverage effect in TSE. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, Shiraz University, 50. [In Persian].
Ait-Sahalia, Y., Fan, J. & Li, Y. (2013). The leverage effect puzzle: Disentangling sources of bias at high frequency. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 224–249. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.02.018
Bekaert, G. & Wu, G. (2000). Asymmetric volatility and risk in equity markets. The Review of Financial Studies, 13(1), 1–42. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/13.1.1
Black, F. (1976). The pricing of commodity contracts. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(1–2), 167–179. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90024-6
Black, F. & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260062
Bollerslev, T., Chou, R. Y. & Kroner, K. F. (1992). ARCH modeling in finance: A review of the theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 52(1–2), 5–59. doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90064-X
Bollerslev, T., Litvinova, J. & Tauchen, G. (2006). Leverage and volatility feedback effects in high-frequency data. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4(3), 353–384. doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbj014
Bollerslev, T., Patton, A. J. & Quaedvlieg, R. (2020). multivariate leverage effects and realized semicovariance GARCH models. Journal of Econometrics, 217(2), 411-430. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.12.011
Braun, P. A., Nelson, D. B. & Sunier, A. M. (1995). Good news, bad news, volatility, and betas. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1575–1603. doi.org/10.2307/2329327
Campbell, J. Y. (1991). A variance decomposition for stock returns. The Economic Journal, 101(405), 157–179. doi.org/10.2307/2233809
Campbell, J. Y. & Hentschel, L. (1992). No news is good news: An asymmetric model of changing volatility in stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 31(3), 281–318. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(92)90037-X
Choi, J. & Richardson, M. (2016). The volatility of a firm's assets and the leverage effect. Journal of Financial Economics, 121(2), 254-277. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.05.009
Christie, A. A. (1982). The stochastic behavior of common stock variances: Value, leverage and interest rate effects. Journal of Financial Economics, 10(4), 407–432. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(82)90018-6
Damodaran, A. (2013). Valuing financial services firms. Journal of Financial Perspectives, 1(1), 59-74.
Ebrahimi, S., Madanizadeh. S.A. & Mahmudzadeh, A. (2018). Factors affecting financial costs, case study of TSE firms. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 76, 53-74. doi.org/10.22054/ijer.2018.9512 [In Persian].
Espinosa, O. & Nieto, F. (2020). A study on the leverage effect on financial series using a TAR model: A bayesian approach. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2002.05319.
Figlewski, S. & Wang, X. (2000). Is the “Leverage Effect” a leverage effect? Available at SSRN 256109.
French, K. R., Schwert, G. W. & Stambaugh, R. F. (1987). Expected stock returns and volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 19(1), 3–29. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(87)90026-2
Galai, D. & Masulis, R. W. (1976). The option pricing model and the risk factor of stock. Journal of Financial Economics (JFE), 3(1/2), 53-81. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90020-9
Geske, R. (1979). The valuation of compound options. Journal of Financial Economics, 7(1), 63–81. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(79)90022-9
Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R. & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The Journal of Finance, 48(5), 1779–1801. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05128.x
Kambouroudis, D. S., McMillan, D. G. & Tsakou, K. (2021). Forecasting realized volatility: The role of implied volatility, leverage effect, overnight returns, and volatility of realized volatility. Journal of Futures Markets, 41(10), 1618-1639. doi.org/10.1002/fut.22241
Koenker, R. & Bassett Jr, G. (1982). Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50(1), 43-61. doi.org/10.2307/1912528
Lajeri‐Chaherli, F. (2002). A note on the valuation of compound options. Journal of Futures Markets: Futures, Options, and Other Derivative Products, 22(11), 1103–1115. doi.org/10.1002/fut.10048
Lukhanda Shibutse, R., Kalunda, E. & Achoki, G. (2019). Effect of leverage and firm size on financial performance of deposit taking savings and credit cooperatives in Kenya. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 8(5), 182–193. doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v8i5.462
Merton, R. C. (1980). On estimating the expected return on the market: An exploratory investigation. Journal of financial economics, 8(4), 323-361. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(80)90007-0
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.
Nardari, F. & Scruggs, J. (2005). Why does stock market volatility change over time? A time-varying variance decomposition for stock returns. In EFA 2005 Moscow Meetings.
Newey, W. K. & Powell, J. L. (1987). Asymmetric least squares estimation and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(4), 819-847. doi.org/10.2307/1911031
Officer, R. R. (1973). The variability of the market factor of the New York stock exchange. The Journal of Business, 46(3), 434–453. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2351391
Pindyck, R. S. (1984). Uncertainty in the theory of renewable resource markets. The Review of Economic Studies, 51(2), 289–303. doi.org/10.2307/2297693
Poterba, J. M. & Summers, L. H. (1988). Mean Reversion in stock prices: Evidence and implications. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(1), 27-59. doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90021-9
Rasekhi, S. & Khanalipur, A. (2009). Volatility analysis and informational efficiency in stock market. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 40, 29-72. [In Persian].
Rasekhi, S., Asadi, S.P. & Sheidayi, Z. (2015). The risk-return relationship dynamics of Iran’s stock market: New evidence using GARCH-JUMP model. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 66, 59-83. doi.org/10.22054/ijer.2016.7046 [In Persian]
Sajadinia, E. (2010). Investigation of leverage effect in stochastic volatility models. [Master’s thesis, Sheikh Bahaei University]. [In Persian]
Schwert, G. W. (1989). Why does stock market volatility change over time? The Journal of Finance, 44(5), 1115–1153. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1989.tb02647.x
Shokuhifard, S., Ale Emran, R., Mehregan, N. & Rahimzadeh, F., (2019). The effect of corruption on human development (quantile regression model). Journal of econometric modeling, 1, 33-67. doi.org/10.22075/jem.2020.19166.1398 [In Persian]