Skip to main content
Log in

The role of investor attention in idiosyncratic volatility puzzle and new results

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We find that stocks with low investor attention show a more substantial return-idiosyncratic volatility puzzle than stocks with high investor attention. We also document that high idiosyncratic volatility stocks with high investor attention at the end of the month when portfolios are formed are responsible for the puzzle, but they lose investor attention and have negative returns at the beginning of the next month. We further show that the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle exists only in the first half of the following month after portfolios are formed. It holds even for stocks with low investor attention.

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. Other papers that provide evidence on undiversified portfolios held by individual investors are Odean (1999), and Mitton and Vorkink (2007). Calvet et al. (2007) present evidence on the under diversification of Swedish households.

  2. Recently Kumar, Ruenzi, and Ungeheuer (2020), and Bucher (2017) have studied the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility anomaly and investor attention in a different settings. The subject of Kumar, Ruenzi, and Ungeheuer (2020) paper’s investigation is focused on winner and loser anomaly and finds results on idiosyncratic volatility anomaly and investor attention in additional analysis. Bucher (2017) examines investor attention and sentiments as risk factors. Our paper directly examines the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility anomalous relationship with stocks returns and investor attention.

  3. This essentially removes all ADRs, SBIs, Units, REITS, closed-end funds and companies incorporated outside the U.S.A.

  4. The Fama–French factors are obtained from Ken French’s data library available at: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html

  5. We thank an anonymous referee to point this out to us.

  6. We thank the referee again for suggesting this robustness test to us.

  7. This evidence is important because portfolios are formed on investor attention and idiosyncratic volatility independently.

  8. While size and idiosyncratic skewness are negatively and positively related with investor attention respectively in the simple regression, size and idiosyncratic skewness are positively and negatively related with investor attention respectively in the multiple regression.

  9. We don’t control for illiquidity and Scholes and Williams beta here because two firm characteristics are not significant in determining investor attention in Table 3.

  10. Huang, Liu, Rhee, and Zhang (2010) find that in cross-sectional regressions of future returns of stocks on idiosyncratic volatility that control for previous month’s return, the coefficient on idiosyncratic volatility is no longer statistically significant.

  11. We only report equal weighted returns for brevity because value weighted returns show similar results.

  12. This data can be found at the following address: http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/ipodata.htm

References

  • Amihud Y (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. J Financ Mark 5:31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang A, Hodrick R, Xing Y, Zhang X (2006) The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. J Financ 61:259–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bali T, Cakici N (2008) Idiosyncratic volatility and the cross-section of expected returns? J Financ Quant Anal 43:29–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber B, Odean T (2008) All that glitters: the effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Rev Financ Stud 21:785–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhootra A, Hur J (2013) The timing of 52-week high price and momentum. J Bank Financ 37:3773–3782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher M (2017) Investor Attention and Sentiment: Risk or Anomaly? Working Papers on Finance 1712, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance

  • Calvet L, Campbell J, Sodini P (2007) Down or out: assessing the welfare costs of household investment mistakes. J Polit Econ 115:707–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan K, Chen N (1991) Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms. J Financ 46:1467–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen L, Frazzini A (2008) Economic links and predictable returns. J Financ 63:1977–2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Z, Engelberg J, Gao P (2011) In search of attention. J Financ 66:1461–1499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Z, Engelberg J, Gao P (2015) The sum of all FEARS investor sentiment and asset prices. Rev Financ Stud 28:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna S, Pollet J (2009) Investor Inattention and friday earnings announcements. J Financ 64:709–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimson E (1979) Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading. J Financ Econ 7:197–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyck A, Zingales L (2003) The media and asset prices. Harvard Business School, Working Paper

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama E, Macbeth J (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: empirical tests. J Polit Econ 81:607–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink J, Fink W, Grullon G, Weston J (2010) What drove the increase in idiosyncratic volatility during the internet boom? J Financ Quant Anal 45:1253–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu F (2009) Idiosyncratic risk and the cross-section of expected stock returns. J Financ Econ 91:24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabaix X, Laibson D, Moloche G, Weinberg S (2006) The allocation of attention: theory and evidence. Am Econ Rev 96:1043–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais S, Kaniel R, Mingelgrin DH (2001) The high-volume return premium. J Financ 56:877–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann W, Kumar A (2008) Equity portfolio diversification. Rev Financ 12:433–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grullon G, Kanatas G, Weston JP (2004) Advertising, breadth of ownership, and liquidity. Rev Financ Stud 17:439–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey C, Siddique A (2000) Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. J Financ 55:1263–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D, Teoh SH (2003) Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. J Acc Econ 36:337–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D, Lim S, Teoh SH (2009) Driven to distraction: extraneous events and underreaction to earnings news. J Financ 64:2289–2325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong H, Stein J (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading, and overreaction in asset markets. J Financ 54:2143–2184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang W, Liu Q, Rhee S, Zhang L (2010) Return reversals, idiosyncratic risk, and expected returns. Rev Financ Stud 23:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman G, Regev T (2001) Contagious speculation and a cure for cancer: a nonevent that made stock prices soar. J Financ 56:387–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh N (1990) Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. J Financ 45:881–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Ruenzi S, Ungeheuer M (2020) Daily winners and losers. University of Miami, Working Paper

  • Lamoureux C, Sanger G (1989) Firm size and turn-of-the-year effects in the OTC/NASDAQ market. J Financ 44:1219–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann B (1990) Fads, martingales, and market efficiency. Quart J Econ 105:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy H (1978) Equilibrium in an imperfect market: a constraint on the number of securities in the portfolio. Am Econ Rev 68:643–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo A, MacKinlay A (1990) When are contrarian profits due to stock market overreaction? Rev Financi Stud 3:175–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malkiel B, Xu Y (2002) Idiosyncratic risk and security returns unpublished working paper. The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson

  • Merton R (1987) A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. J Financ 42:483–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitton T, Vorkink K (2007) Equilibrium under diversification and the preference for skewness. Rev Financ Stud 20:1255–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odean T (1999) Do investors trade too much? Am Econ Rev 89:1279–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng L, Xiong W (2006) Investor Attention, overconfidence and category learning. J Financ Econ 80:563–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinganum M (1981) Misspecification of capital asset pricing: Empirical anomalies based on earnings’ yields and market values. J Financ Econ 9:19–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rown P, Keim D, Kleidon A, Marsh T (1983) Stock return seasonalities and the tax-loss selling hypothesis: analysis of the arguments and Australian evidence. J Financ Econ 12:105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes M, Williams J (1977) Estimating betas from non-synchronous data. J Financ Econ 5:308–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seasholes MS, Guojun Wu (2007) Predictable behavior, profits, and attention. J Empir Financ 14:590–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao Y (2012) Momentum, contrarian, and the january seasonality. J Bank Financ 36:2757–2769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Yu (2015) Market-wide attention, trading, and stock returns. J Financ Econ 116:548–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivek Singh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Definitions of variables

Appendix: Definitions of variables

ATT: Abnormal Dollar Trading Volume (ATT) is defined as the dollar trading volume on the day/average dollar trading volume over the previous year following Barber and Odean (2008).

IVOL: During month t, we run the following regression of excess daily returns of each stock i on contemporaneous daily Fama–French factors:

$$R_{{i,d}} - R_{{f,d}} ~ = \alpha _{i} + \beta _{i} MAKTRF_{d} + s_{i} SMB_{d} + h_{i} HML_{d} + \varepsilon _{{i,d}} ~$$

Ri,d is the return of stock i on day d, Rf,d is the daily risk-free rate, and MKTRFd, SMBd, and HMLd are the daily Fama–French factors. The monthly idiosyncratic volatility of stock i in month t is defined as the standard deviation of the residuals from this regression times the square root of the number of trading days in the month:

$$IVOL_{{i,t}} = \sqrt {var\left( {e_{{i,d}} } \right)} ~X~\sqrt {D_{t} } ~~$$

where Dt is the number of trading days for stock i in month t.

SIZE: SIZE is the natural logarithm of the stock's month-end market capitalization (price times shares outstanding).

ISKW: Following Harvey and Siddique (2000), ISKW is the daily idiosyncratic skewness of a stock, which is the skewness of the residuals from the following regression:

$$R_{{i,d}} - R_{{f,d}} ~ = \alpha _{i} + \beta _{i} \left( {R_{{m,d}} - R_{{f,d}} } \right) + \gamma _{i} \left( {R_{{m,d}} - R_{{f,d}} } \right)^{2} + \varepsilon _{{i,d}} ~$$

Ri,d, Rf,d, and Rm,d are the return on stock i on day d, the T-Bill return on day d, and the return on CRSP value-weighted market index day d, respectively.

REV: Following Jegadeesh (1990) and Lehmann (1990), the REV variable is used to capture short-term reversals in stock returns and equals the return of stock i in month t; that is, REVi,t = Ri,t.

Pre12Ret: Pre12Ret is the momentum variable. Following Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), each stock's momentum variable in a given month is defined as its buy and hold return over the past 12 months.

IH: We compute the individual investors' holding (IH) in stock at the end of each quarter by subtracting from 100 the ratio of shares held by large institutional investors to the total number of shares outstanding expressed as %. We further assume that it remains constant over the subsequent quarter before the next update. The quarterly holdings of institutional investors are obtained from the Thomson Reuters 13F institutional database, constructed from the 13 F filings of large institutional investors with $100 million or more in assets under management.

BTM: BTM is the firm's book-to-market ratio. Following Fama and French (1993), we compute BTM in month t of a year as the ratio of the book value of equity for the fiscal year ending in the prior calendar year and market equity at the end of December of the prior calendar year. Book value of equity, computed using Compustat data, is the stockholders' equity (DATA 216), plus balance sheet deferred taxes and investment tax credit (DATA 35), minus the book value of the preferred stock (DATA56 or DATA10 or DATA 130, in that order) at the fiscal year-end.

IllIQ: IllIQ is the measure of illiquidity for a stock in a given month. Following Amihud (2002), Illiq is measured as the ratio of stock's absolute monthly return to its dollar trading volume:

\(ILLIQi,t = \left| {Ri,t} \right|\) / \(VOLD{\text{ }}i,t\)

Ri,t, and VOLDi,t is the return and dollar volume, respectively, of stock i in month t.

BETA: We use the daily returns within a month to estimate stocks' beta and therefore employ the adjustment procedure of Scholes and Williams (1977) and Dimson (1979) to mitigate the impact of non-synchronous trading. Beta is estimated using the following regression model:

$$Ri,d - Rf,d = ai + \beta 1,i(Rm,d - 1 - Rf,d - 1) + \beta 2,i(Rm,d - Rf,d) + \beta 3,i(Rm,d + 1 - Rf,d + 1) + e_{{i,d}} ,$$

Ri,d, Rf,d, and Rm,d are the return on stock i on day d, the T-Bill return on day d, and the return on CRSP value-weighted market index day d, respectively. The estimate of stock's beta is given by \(\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta } _{i} = \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta } 1,i + \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta } 2,i + \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta } 3,i\).

NAE: Analysts' coverage (NAE) is from IBES summary files of earnings as the monthly earnings estimates are available for each firm.

AGE: firm age (AGE) is the number of years since its founding year of incorporation if the founding year is unavailable. We follow Fink et al. (2010) to obtain original founding dates for our firms' sample between 1980 and 1998. We supplement this data for the remaining of our sample period using founding dates for IPOs compiled by Jay Ritter on his website.Footnote 12 We use the earliest available date between the founding date and incorporation date to determine the firm's age.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hur, J., Singh, V. The role of investor attention in idiosyncratic volatility puzzle and new results. Rev Quant Finan Acc 58, 409–434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-021-00999-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-021-00999-w

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation