Rate of change of beta
"This is (almost) a question in financial engineering. First I will note that a discussion of ""the greeks"" is well presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_(finance) These measures are first, second and higher order derivatives (or rate of change comparisons) for information that is generally instantaneous. (Bear with me.) For example the most popular, Delta, compares prices of an option or other derived asset to the underlying asset price. The reason we are able to do all this cool analysis is because the the value of the underlying and derived assets have a direct, instantaneous relationship on each other. Because beta is calculated over a large period of time, and because each time slice covered contributes equally to the aggregate, then the ""difference in Beta"" would really just be showing two pieces of information: Summarizing those two pieces of information into ""delta beta"" would not be useful to me. For further discussion, please see http://www.gummy-stuff.org/beta.htm specifically look at the huge difference in calculation of GE's beta using end-of-month returns versus calculation using day-before-end-of-month returns." This is a useful metric in that it gives you a trust factor on how reliable the beta is for future expectations   It is akin to velocity and acceleration  First  and second order derivatives of distance / time.  Erratic acceleration implies the velocity is less trustworthy  Same idea for beta If you do not need it for a day or a week or something like that, an easy thing to do to get the beta of a security is to use wolframalpha.  Here is a sample query: BETA for AAPL Calculating beta is an important metric, but it is not a be all end all, as there are ways to hedge the beta of your portfolio. So relying on beta is only useful if it is done in conjunction with something else. A high beta security just means that overall the security acts as the market does with some multiplier effect. For a secure portfolio you want beta as close to zero as possible for capital preservation while trying to find ways to exploit alpha.
I agree with that, but this study can't have been conducted over the long term. I'm just pointing out that just because the rates of increase are different doesn't necessarily imply a high margin of error.   Could be a high margin of error, of course, just saying the difference doesn't imply this. Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal? I think I may have gotten my reasoning backwards, since beta can be thought of as just the quantification of the relationship in prices but in itself isn't the actual reason behind them.  Risk free are things such as Treasury bonds/bills. The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence. Identify the market and time period. Use the [capital asset pricing model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_asset_pricing_model) to determine the market beta(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) for your given stock and interpret the results (if your stock plots above the security market line, it means you are getting higher return for your risk, with consideration of the affects of market risk).  Maybe give a more detailed question? You might simply need to compute a modified [Sharpe Ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio) using the market (during the time you've decided is the recession) as the risk free rate. Tough to give a good answer to such a general/non-specific question.  EDIT: link formatting - can't get the beta page to link because of '( )' in url The volatility measures how fast the stock moves, not how much. So you need to know the period during which that change occurred. Then the volatility naturally is higher the faster is the change. He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely. Still working on exact answer to question....for now: (BONUS) Here is how to pull a graphical chart with the required data: Therefore: As r14 = the indicator for RSI.  The above pull would pull Google,   6months, line chart, linear, large, with a 50 day moving average, a   200 day exponential moving average, volume, and followed up with RSI. Reference Link:  Finance Yahoo! API's I think what's screwing up my calculation is the (reL), return on equity levereged figure. The beta for KORS apparently is -0.58, so when I use the formula reL = rf + (ßL)(rm - rf), I get -0.0048 as my reL.   Am I doing my beta wrong? Am I supposed to use a different figure for my beta?    ALSO, further in the process, when using the formula for WACC, my E/(D+E) is essentially 1.0 because market value of equity for KORS is 7bill and its market value of debt is only like 147 million.  edit: I'm beginning to believe that my beta of -0.58 is not rightly used. It's what yahoo told me, but other sources are saying that the beta of KORS is more like -0.01 or close to 0. Yes?   edit 2: Using -0.01 beta, I get a rdWACC of 2.2%. Now this seems more plausible. I did some research on negative betas and found out that they basically don't really exist aside from gold. So Yahoo must be giving me a weird beta figure. Other websites are all giving me -0.01, so I believe that is correct. There's no standard formula. You can compare the going rates on the market for unsecured LOCs and take that as the starting anchor. Unsecured lines of credit run in the US at about 8-18%. Your risk should be reflected in the rate, and I see no reason why the rate would change throughout the loan. As to the amount of principal changing? Just chose one of the standard compounding options - daily (most precise, but most tedious to calculate), monthly average balance, etc. While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change.  If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell.  Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does. Let's say I have a large company with a sub-unit which accounts for 40% of their revenues. The company is traded at a foreign stock exchange, but have the sub-unit that is located domestically. The beta of the company can be easily found online or calculated manually. How do I determine the beta of a sub-unit of a multinational company? "The short answer is the annualised volatility over twenty years should be pretty much the same as the annualised volatility over five years. For independent, identically distributed returns the volatility scales proportionally. So for any number of monthly returns T, setting the annualization factor m = 12 annualises the volatility.  It should be the same for all time scales.  However, note the discussion here: https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7496/7178 Scaling volatility [like this] only is mathematically correct when the   underlying price model is driven by Geometric Brownian motion which   implies that prices are log normally distributed and returns are   normally distributed. Particularly the comment: ""its a well known fact that volatility is overestimated when scaled over long periods of time without a change of model to estimate such ""long-term"" volatility."" Now, a demonstration.  I have modelled 12,000 monthly returns with mean = 3% and standard deviation = 2, so the annualised volatility should be Sqrt(12) * 2 = 6.9282.   Calculating annualised volatility for return sequences of various lengths (3, 6, 12, 60 months etc.) reveals an inaccuracy for shorter sequences.  The five-year sequence average got closest to the theoretically expected figure (6.9282), and, as the commenter noted ""volatility is [slightly] overestimated when scaled over long periods of time"". Annualised volatility for varying return sequence lengths  Edit re. comment Reinvesting returns does not affect the volatility much.  For instance, comparing some data I have handy, the Dow Jones Industrial Average Capital Returns (CR) versus Net Returns (NR).  The return differences are somewhat smoothed, 0.1% each month, 0.25% every third month.  More erratic dividend reinvestment would increase the volatility." The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted).  The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change.  That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest. Looked at the luv model quickly. The most likely reason is you calculated a FCF lower than the market. You have FCF decreasing due to shrinking margins over the model period. Your terminal value then has the FCF growing by 2.3% into perpetuity so that doesn't really coincide. I mean, it could but I wouldn't use it. I personally think the shrinking margin assumption going forward is a little much.   For your terminal value calc, don't you want that to be the final model year cash flow times 1 plus the terminal growth rate?    Also, I find it interesting that the risk free rate is the terminal growth rate. Any particular reasoning behind that?  It works now at the 2.3% but probably wouldn't in a different interest rate environment.