A number of academic studies suggest that illiquid stocks should outperform liquid stocks to compensate for higher risk. Yet evidence supporting the existence of a persistent Liquidity effect for equities is weak. As a result, we don’t include Liquidity in our set of relevant factors for quantitative equity strategies.
Liquidity can be defined as the ease of executing a transaction without creating excessive costs. When executing a transaction, investors pay explicitly for the prevailing bid-ask spread, and implicitly for any adverse price swings due to the removal of liquidity from the market. All else being equal, the more illiquid a stock, the more difficult and expensive it is to trade it, and this property makes illiquid stocks less attractive than liquid stocks.
For this reason, illiquid stocks should command a premium to be held, or conversely, liquid stocks should trade at a discount. This reasoning warrants the existence of a liquidity factor premium in stock returns, and some academic studies indeed claim to observe such a premium in the data. However, unlike other established factors, liquidity has never received much attention from institutional investors, at least not in equity markets.
One possible reason for this is that investment strategies based on the liquidity factor are difficult to implement in practice. While other established factors can be exploited in broad, diversified portfolios that are considered investable from an institutional investor’s standpoint, these investors often face liquidity constraints in their allocation decisions, that make an equity strategy that explicitly invests in illiquid stocks less appealing.
Another possible explanation is that the evidence for the existence of a liquidity premium is not very solid. While liquidity undoubtedly matters when it comes to portfolio construction and implementation, it is not clear whether stocks earn higher returns simply because they are illiquid. In other words: are equity investors compensated for taking on extra illiquidity risk?
Over the past few decades, a number of academic studies1 have presented evidence in favor of existence of a relationship between liquidity and stock returns. However, the robustness of these findings has been called into question. In particular, multiple studies2 have shown that the liquidity effect is not robust across different time periods, and can only be found during the in-sample period, if at all.
Moreover, the liquidity effect is largely driven by microcaps, which represent around 3% of total market cap of the US stock market, but account for around 60% of the total number of stocks Once these elements are taken into account, the evidence vetting the existence of a well-rewarded liquidity factor simply cannot be found.
But while the existence of a stand-alone liquidity factor is questionable, interactions between liquidity and other established factors do exist. The relationship between size and liquidity is a good example of this, as small stocks also tend to be less liquid. More generally, it makes sense that some factors are stronger amongst illiquid stocks, since illiquid segments of the market are less efficient at determining the fair value of assets.
Small, illiquid stocks can therefore be seen as a catalyst for other factor premiums, as opposed to an independent source of return. Provided there are interaction effects between established factors and stock-level liquidity, it is the job of an active manager to identify and model these effects in the stock selection and portfolio construction phases. Given that these stocks, by definition, tend to be more difficult and expensive to trade, smart portfolio implementation can therefore add substantial value for investors.
Liquidity is a critical element to take into account when translating theoretical investment strategies to live portfolios. In the words of André Perold from Harvard Business School, “There are crucial differences between transacting on paper and transacting in real markets”. This gap is better known as the ‘implementation shortfall’. When constructing investment portfolios, trading costs, which are a direct function of the liquidity level of a stock, erode the expected alpha.
Although expected alphas are driven by exposures to proven factor premiums and liquidity does not qualify as an independent alpha factor, it is nonetheless a key driver of transaction costs, and therefore net returns. As a result, a sophisticated portfolio construction process and smart portfolio implementation can add a lot of value to the investment process.
1See for example: Y. Amihud and H. Mendelson, ‘Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread’, Journal of Financial Economics, December 1986; V. Datara, Y. Naikb and R. Radcliffec, ‘Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test’, Journal of Financial Markets, August 1998; T. Chordia, A. Subrahmanyam and V. Anshuman, ‘Trading activity and expected stock returns’, Journal of Financial Economics, January 2001; V. Acharya and L. Pedersen, ‘Asset pricing with liquidity risk’, Journal of Financial Economics, August 2005, L. Pastor and R. Stambaugh, Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns, Journal of Political Economy, June 2003.
2See for example: J. Drienko, T. Smith and A. von Reibnitz, ‘A Review of the Return–Illiquidity Relationship’, Critical Finance Review, Forthcoming October 2018; K. Hou, C. Xue, and L. Zhang, ‘Replicating Anomalies’, NBER Working Paper, 2017; H. Li, R. Novy-Marx and M. Velikov, ‘Liquidity risk and asset pricing’, 2017.
当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。
商号等： ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社 金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長（金商）第２７８０号
加入協会： 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会