Bowman's risk-return relationship: Empirical evidence in a frontier market
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.19(2).2022.16
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2022, Issue #2, pp. 191-200
- Cited by
- 487 Views
-
197 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This paper investigates whether there exists a Bowman paradox on the relationship between risk-return for Vietnamese firms. Data in the annual audited financial statements from 2017 to 2020 of 727 enterprises listed on the Vietnamese stock market are used in this study. The data set is divided into two different groups based on the reference point, which is the average return of the whole market and by industry. Correlation analysis and ordinary least square regression according to cross sectional data were performed in this study. After controlling for size, debt-to-total assets, and debt-to-equity ratios, the research results show that the risk-return relationship of the two groups of firms is mixed and can be explained by prospect theory. There exists Bowman's paradox for a group of firms whose return is below the reference point, these firms tend to seek risk versus return, so their risk-return relationship is negative. In contrast, this relationship is positive for the group of firms whose returns are above the reference point, or which tend to avoid risk. The slope coefficient of the group of enterprises below the reference point compared to the rest of enterprises is 2.5:1, which correctly reflects the ratio of the risk-seeking area to the risk-avoiding area in prospect theory.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G40, G41, L20, M41
-
References23
-
Tables6
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Statistics of two groups of companies classified based on market reference points (median ROA= +4.44%)
- Table 2. Statistics of two groups of companies classified based on the reference point of each industry
- Table 3. Correlation results between pairs of variables by market level
- Table 4. Correlation results between pairs of variables by industry level
- Table 5. Regression results classified by market level
- Table 6. Regression results classified by industry level
-
- Beaver, W., Kettler, P., & Scholes, M. (1970). The association between market determined and accounting determined risk measures. The Accounting Review, 45(4), 654-682.
- Bettis, R. A., & Mahajan, V. (1985). Risk/return performance of diversified firms. Management Science, 31(7), 785-799.
- Bowman, E. H. (1980). A Risk/Return Paradox for Strategic Management. Sloan Management Review, 21(3), 17-31.
- Bowman, E. H. (1984). Content analysis of annual reports for corporate strategy and risk. Interfaces, 14(1), 61-71.
- Bowman, R. G. (1979). The theoretical relationship between systematic risk and financial (accounting) variables. The Journal of Finance, 34(3), 617-630.
- Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., Allen, F., & Mohanty, P. (2018). Principles of corporate finance, 12/e (Vol. 12). McGraw-Hill Education.
- Chou, P. H., Chou, R. K., & Ko, K. C. (2009). Prospect theory and the risk-return paradox: some recent evidence. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 33(3), 193-208.
- Cootner, P. H., & Holland, D. M. (1970). Rate of return and business risk. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 211-226.
- De Bondt, W. F., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 9, 385-410.
- Fiegenbaum, A. (1990). Prospect theory and the risk-return association: An empirical examination in 85 industries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 14(2), 187-203.
- Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1988). Attitudes toward risk and the risk–return paradox: prospect theory explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 85-106.
- Fisher, I. N., & Hall, G. R. (1969). Risk and corporate rates of return. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79-92.
- Gupta, R. D. (2017). Risk-attitudes of the NSE 500 firms—Bowman’s paradox and prospect theory perspectives. IIMB Management Review, 29(2), 76-89.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
- Miller, K. D., & Bromiley, P. (1990). Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 756-779.
- Neumann, M., Böbel, I., & Haid, A. (1979). Profitability, risk and market structure in West German industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(3), 227-242.
- Nuir, R. S., & Asri, M. (2019). Bowman’s Paradox: Prospect-Theory-Based Risk-Return Relationship (Some Recent Evidence in Indonesia). The Indonesian Capital Market Review, 11(1), 1.
- Oviatt, B. M., & Bauerschmidt, A. D. (1991). Business risk and return: A test of simultaneous relationships. Management Science, 37(11), 1405-1423.
- Patel, P. C., Li, M., & Park, H. D. (2018). A replication of Bowman’s paradox across 28 countries. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 128-142.
- Phuong, L.C.M. (2021). How COVID-19 impacts Vietnam’s banking stocks: An event study method. Banks and Bank Systems, 16(1), 92-102.
- Phuong, L.C.M. (2022). Industry-level stock returns response to COVID-19 news. Finance: Theory and Practice, 26(1), 103-114.
- Sinha, T. (1994). Theory and the risk return association: another look. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 24(2), 225-231.
- Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior. In Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.