Default risk, size, and equity returns: Evidence from an emerging stock market

Download This Article

Le Quy Duong ORCID logo, Pham Dan Khanh ORCID logo, Manh Dung Tran ORCID logo

https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv7i3sip18

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Although the relationship among default risk, size, and equity returns is comprehensively investigated in developed stock markets, the analysis is still lacking for Vietnam, an important emerging market in Southeast Asia. The key aim of this research is to examine the relationship among default risk, size, and equity returns in the Vietnamese stock market, and compare the explanatory power of the default-risk factor to the size factor in asset pricing models. We use an option-based model to obtain the proxy of default risk for approximately 360 listed firms in Vietnam. Empirical results show that distance-to-default is negatively related to stock returns. When size is controlled, the default effect exists in different size-ranked portfolios. In asset pricing models, the default-risk factor is more powerful in explaining Vietnamese equity returns compared to the size factor of Fama and French (1993). As a result, default risk is a significant factor in Vietnamese stock returns, consistent with the risk-based point of view.

Keywords: Stock Returns, Default Risk, Distance-to-Default, Financial Markets, Organizational Finance

Authors’ individual contribution: Conceptualization — L.Q.D.; Methodology — L.Q.D.; Validation — M.D.T.; Writing — Review & Editing — L.Q.D. and P.D.K.; Visualization — P.D.K..; Supervision — M.D.T.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

JEL Classification: G12, G32, G33

Received: 10.05.2023
Accepted: 11.09.2023
Published online: 14.09.2023

How to cite this paper: Quy Duong, L., Khanh, P. D., & Tran, M. D. (2023). Default risk, size, and equity returns: Evidence from an emerging stock market [Special issue]. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review, 7(3), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv7i3sip18