Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk
Source: Campbell, J. Y., Lettau, M., Malkiel, B. G. & Xu, Y. (2001) · Journal of Finance 56(1), 1–43 · DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00318
The idea
Decompose the volatility of a typical common stock into **market, industry, and firm-specific
(idiosyncratic) components without estimating betas, and ask how each has evolved. Over 1962–1997**,
firm-level (idiosyncratic) volatility rose noticeably relative to market and industry volatility. As a
result, correlations among stocks fell, the market model's explanatory power for a typical stock
declined, and the number of stocks needed for a given level of diversification increased.
Evidence
comparable trend.
typical stock fell — so more stocks are needed to achieve a given diversification.
market volatility tends to lead the industry and firm series.
Why it matters
A foundational reference on idiosyncratic risk and diversification. It is essential background for the
idiosyncratic-volatility anomaly (Ang, Hodrick, Xing & Zhang 2006), for limits-to-arbitrage arguments
(more firm-specific risk makes arbitrage costlier), and for portfolio-construction intuition about how
many names are needed to diversify.
Caveats
(new/younger listings, sectoral composition, and growth options are debated drivers).
Key references
Provenance: verified/generated from the paper's full text.
