Search Advanced

Quantitative Finance and Economics

2018, Volume 2, Issue 2: 348-372. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.2.348
Previous Article Next Article
Research article Special Issues

Volatility analysis of returns and risk: Family versus nonfamily firms

  • 1.
    DEGEIT-Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism; GOVCOPP-Research Unit of Investigation in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Finances; University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
  • 2.
    ISCA-Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração, University of Aveiro; GOVCOPP- Research Unit of Investigation in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Finances; R. Associação Humanitária dos Bombeiros Voluntários de Aveiro, 3810-500 Aveiro, Portugal
  • Received: 25 August 2017 Accepted: 28 February 2018 Published: 31 May 2018

  • JEL Codes: C22, G11, G12, M21

  • Family firms (FF) tend to be classified as less risky and volatile than nonfamily firms (NFF). This article aims to examine whether there are differences in risk and volatility between FF and NFF, using Portuguese listed firms during 2008 and 2017. Through different models and specifications, we were able to verify that there exists a positive relationship identified in the volatility-return nexus which depends on the model used, and even so, negative in the case of FF, but that volatility is stronger in NFF than in FF as descriptive statistics reveal. Furthermore, it was found no considerable differences in terms of the liquidity-volatility relationship between the two types of firms, and we cannot argue that the negative relationship between returns and turnover is higher in NFF. It was also found that more illiquid stocks have negative returns but there are no clear differences between FF and NFF. The crisis effect is more able to explain volatility positively than returns negatively, being the impact lower for NFF. Our results do not strictly confirm the fact that FF are less volatile than NFF but provided variables interaction effects we may argue that a risk-averse investor will be more prone to invest in FF stocks, while a risk lover agent will prefer to look at NFF when building their investment portfolios.

    Citation: Mara Madaleno, Elisabete Vieira. Volatility analysis of returns and risk: Family versus nonfamily firms[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2018, 2(2): 348-372. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.2.348

    Related Papers:

  • Family firms (FF) tend to be classified as less risky and volatile than nonfamily firms (NFF). This article aims to examine whether there are differences in risk and volatility between FF and NFF, using Portuguese listed firms during 2008 and 2017. Through different models and specifications, we were able to verify that there exists a positive relationship identified in the volatility-return nexus which depends on the model used, and even so, negative in the case of FF, but that volatility is stronger in NFF than in FF as descriptive statistics reveal. Furthermore, it was found no considerable differences in terms of the liquidity-volatility relationship between the two types of firms, and we cannot argue that the negative relationship between returns and turnover is higher in NFF. It was also found that more illiquid stocks have negative returns but there are no clear differences between FF and NFF. The crisis effect is more able to explain volatility positively than returns negatively, being the impact lower for NFF. Our results do not strictly confirm the fact that FF are less volatile than NFF but provided variables interaction effects we may argue that a risk-averse investor will be more prone to invest in FF stocks, while a risk lover agent will prefer to look at NFF when building their investment portfolios.


    加载中
    [1] Agarwal V, Arisoy YE, Naik NY (2017) Volatility of aggregate volatility and hedge fund returns. J Financ Econ 125: 491–510. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.06.015
    [2] Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2003) Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. J Financ 58: 1301–1328. doi: 10.1111/1540-6261.00567
    [3] Attig N, Boubakri N, Ghoul SE, et al. (2016) The Global Financial Crisis, Family Control, and Dividend Policy. Financ Manage 45: 291–313. doi: 10.1111/fima.12115
    [4] Baillie RT, DeGennaro RP (1990) Stock returns and volatility. J Finan Quant Anal 25: 203–214. doi: 10.2307/2330824
    [5] Bakke TE, Whited TM (2010) Which firms follow the market? An analysis of corporate investment decisions. Rev Financ Stud 23: 1941–1980.
    [6] Barinov A, Science M (2014) Turnover: Liquidity or uncertainty? Manag Sci 60: 2478–2495. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1913
    [7] Bekaert G, Wu G (2000) Asymmetric volatility and risk in equity markets. Rev Financ Stud 13: 1–42. doi: 10.1093/rfs/13.1.1
    [8] Berrone P, Cruz C, Gomez-Mejia LR (2016) Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 25: 258–279.
    [9] .Bollerslev T (1986) Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity. J Econometrics 31: 307–327. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
    [10] Bollerslev T, Engle RF, Wooldridge JM (1988) A capital asset pricing model with time-varying covariances. J Polit Econ 96: 116–131. doi: 10.1086/261527
    [11] Bollerslev T, Litvinova J, Tauchen G (2006) Leverage and volatility feedback effects in high-frequency data. J Financ Econ 4: 353–384.
    [12] Brogaard J, Li D, Xia Y (2017) Stock liquidity and default risk. J Financ Econ 124: 486–502. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.03.003
    [13] Callen JL, Khan M, Lu H (2013) Accounting quality, stock price delay, and future stock returns. Contemp Account Res 30: 269–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01154.x
    [14] Cassia L, Massis AD, Pizzurno E (2012) Strategic innovation and new product development in family firms. Int J Entrep Behav Res 18: 198–232. doi: 10.1108/13552551211204229
    [15] Datar VT, Naik NY, Radcliffe R (1998) Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. J Financ Mark 1: 203–219. doi: 10.1016/S1386-4181(97)00004-9
    [16] Dey MK (2005) Turnover and return in global stock markets. Emerging Mark Rev 6: 45–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2004.09.003
    [17] Duran P, Kammerlander N, Zellweger T (2016) Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family Firms. Acad Manag J 59: 1224–1264. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0424
    [18] Erbetta F, Menozzi A, Corbetta G, et al. (2013) Assessing family firm performance using frontier analysis techniques: Evidence from Italian manufacturing industries. J Fam Bus Strategy 4: 106–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.04.001
    [19] European Family Businesses. Definition of a family business, 2016. Available from: http://www.europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/family-businesses/facts-figures.
    [20] Fang VW, Noe TH, Tice S (2009) Stock market liquidity and firm value. J Financ Econ 94: 150–169. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.08.007
    [21] Gómez-Mejía LR, Haynes KT, Núñez-Nickel M, et al. (2007) Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills. Adm Sci Q 52: 106–137. doi: 10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
    [22] Hibbert AM, Daigler RT, Dupoyet B (2008) A behavioral explanation for the negative asymmetric return–volatility relation. J Bank Financ 32: 2254–2266. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.046
    [23] Hiebl MRW (2013) Risk aversion in family firms: What do we really know? J Risk Financ 14: 49–70.
    [24] Huybrechts J, Voordeckers W, Lybaert N (2013) Entrepreneurial Risk Taking of Private Family Firms: The Influence of a Nonfamily CEO and the Moderating Effect of CEO Tenure. Fam Bus Rev 26: 161–179. doi: 10.1177/0894486512469252
    [25] Jiang F, Ma Y, Shi B (2016) Stock liquidity and dividends payouts. J Corp Financ 42: 295–314.
    [26] Lahmiri S (2017a) On fractality and chaos in Moroccan family business stock returns and volatility. Physica 473: 29–39.
    [27] Lahmiri S (2017b) Multifractal in volatility of family business stocks listed on Casablanca stock exchange. Fractals 25: 1750014.
    [28] Lahmiri S (2017c) Multifractal analysis of Moroccan family business stock returns. Physica 486: 183–191.
    [29] Lahmiri S (2018) Randomness in denoised stock returns: The case of Moroccan family business companies. Phy Lette A 382: 554–560. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2017.12.020
    [30] Lesmond D, Ogden J, Trzcinka C (1999) A new estimate of transaction costs. Rev Financ Stud 12: 1113–1141. doi: 10.1093/rfs/12.5.1113
    [31] Lettau M, Ludvigson SC (2002) Measuring and modeling variation in the risk-return trade-off. Handb Financ Econometrics 2002: 617–690.
    [32] Lins KV, Volpin P, Wagner HF (2013) Does Family Control Matter? International Evidence from the 2008–2009 Financial Crisis. Rev Financ Stud 26: 2583–2619.
    [33] Lisboa I, Quirós MDMM (2015) Family firms' heterogeneity and firm risk. Bol Est Econ 70: 139–157.
    [34] Litz RA, Pearson AW, Litchfield S (2012) Charting the future of family business research: Perspectives from the field. Fam Bus Rev 25: 16–32. doi: 10.1177/0894486511418489
    [35] Maloni MJ, Hiatt MS, Astrachan JH (2017) Supply management and family business: A review and call for research. J Purch Supply Manag 23: 123–136. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2016.12.002
    [36] Martinez MA, Aldrich HE (2014) Sociological theories applied to family business, In: Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business . London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 83–99.
    [37] Nekhili M, Nagati H, Chtioui T, et al. (2017) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market value: Family versus nonfamily firms. J Bus Res 77: 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.001
    [38] Patel R, Chrisman J (2014) Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strat Manag J 35: 617–627. doi: 10.1002/smj.2119
    [39] Pathan S (2009) Strong boards, CEO power and bank risk-taking. J Bank Finan 33: 1340–1350. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.02.001
    [40] Poletti-Hughes J, Williams J (2017) The effect of family control on value and risk-taking in Mexico: A socioemotional wealth approach. Int Rev Financ Anal 1–13.
    [41] Qian M, Sun PW, Yu B (2017) High turnover with high price delay? Dissecting the puzzling phenomenon for China's A-shares. Financ Res Lett 22: 105–113.
    [42] Setia-Atmaja L (2010) Dividend and debt policies of family controlled firms: The impact of board independence. Int J Manag Financ 6: 128–142.
    [43] Short JC, Payne GT, Brigham KH, et al. (2009) Family Firms and Entrepreneurial Orientation in Publicly Traded Firms: A Comparative Analysis of the S&P 500. Fam Bus Rev 22: 9–24. doi: 10.1177/0894486508327823
    [44] Sims C (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48: 1–48. doi: 10.2307/1912017
    [45] Teixeira RF, Madaleno M, Vieira ES (2016) Oil price effects over individual Portuguese stock returns. Empir Econ 53: 1–36.
    [46] Vieira ES (2017) Debt policy and firm performance of family firms: The impact of economic adversity. Int J Manag Financ 13: 267–286.
    [47] Wu G (2001) The determinants of asymmetric volatility. Rev Financ Stud 14: 837–859. doi: 10.1093/rfs/14.3.837
    [48] Zhou H, He F, Wang Y (2017) Did family firms perform better during the financial crisis? New insights from the S&P 500 firms. Global Financ J 33: 88–103.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
Quantitative Finance and Economics
3.2 0.3

Metrics

Article views(3780) PDF downloads(915) Cited by(4)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(8)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog