Econometric Analysis of Capm

The biggest advantage of CAPM is simple and clear. It is the prices of any kind of risky securities are divided into three factors: the risk-free rate of return, price and unit risk. Throughout these three factors combine together, it will provide a clear picture for the analyst. In addition, another advantage is the usefulness of CAPM. It allows investors to review and evaluate selection of various financial assets competitive quotes based on the absolute risk rather than the total risk. Investors in the financial market have adopted this method as it able to solve the general problem of investment

The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) was proposed by Sharpe (1964) –Lintner (1965) whom had relied on the Markowitz mean–variance-efficiency model, in the mean – variance –efficiency model investors are supposed to be risk-averse during one time period and they only care about the expected returns and the variance of returns (risk). These investors choose only efficient portfolios with minimum variance, given expected return, and maximum expected return, and variance. The Expected returns and variance plot a parabola, and points above its global minimum identify a mean–Variance - efficient frontier of risky assets.

Harry Markowitz 1991, developed a theory of “Portfolio choice”, that allows the investors to examine the risk as per the expected returns. In modern World, this theory is known as Modern portfolio theory (MPT). It attempts to attain the best portfolio expected return for a predefined portfolio risk, or to minimise the risk for the predefined expected returns, by a careful choice of assets. Though it’s a widely used theory, still has been challenged widely. The critics question the feasibility of theory as a strategy for

In this literate review the most important papers about explaining stock returns from 1952, when Markowitz came up with Modern Portfolio Theory, till around 2011 will be discussed. As stated in Chapter 2, Jack Treynor was one of the first economists that started to work on the CAPM model. When he developed the CAPM in 1961, there was no way yet to fully test it. Because there were no samples large enough or of sufficient quality, the real testing of the CAPM started in 1970. In 1973, the world was shown the famous Black and Scholes options pricing model. One of the first studies that gave a different answer than the CAPM was the research by Basu (1977). While he agrees with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Basu reaches another

CAPM results can be compared to the best expected rate of return that investor can possibly earn in other investments with similar risks, which is the cost of capital. Under the CAPM, the market portfolio is a well-diversified, efficient portfolio representing the non-diversifiable risk in the economy. Therefore, investments have similar risk if they have the same sensitivity to market risk, as measured by their beta with the market portfolio.

‘The Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is a very useful model and it is used widely in the industry even though it is based on very strong assumptions. Discuss in the light of recent developments in the area.’

S. Basu (1997) tested for the information content of price-earnings multiple. He tested to see whether low P/E stocks outperform stocks with high P/E ratios. If historical P/E ratios provided useful information for obtaining higher stock returns then it would be refutation of semi strong form of efficient market hypothesis. His results indicated that low P/E portfolios provided superior returns relative to the market and high P/E provided inferior returns relative to the market. The results reported in this paper indicate that P/E ratio information was not fully

This model is an expansion of the CAPM and it includes two additional variables, taking into account size and book to market factors, as explanatory variables expressed within the model as SMB and HML. The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and Fama & French’s three factors model are both models account for the expected returns for stock albeit using different variables to distinguish and add reliability to the predictions of these estimated returns. However, the CAPM uses only one factor to determine the riskiness of the marketplace, Beta, whereas Fama & French expands on this model, incorporate another two factors to establish the risk, Small minus Big (SMB) and High Minus Low (HML), which take into account the relationships between market and share size. Hence, in Fama & French’s findings, stocks with higher beta did not always perform better. The Three Factor Model is indeed preferred at predicting the returns of stocks, in correlation with each models risk factor.

In order to test the validity of the CAPM, we have applied the two-step testing procedure for asset pricing model as proposed by Fama and Macbeth (1973) in their seminal paper.

“Higher risks lead to higher returns” is one of the basic concepts in the investment theory. Also, the CAPM, thought for decades at universities as one of the basic asset pricing models, supports it.

As indicated by the case study S&P 500 index was use as a measure of the total return for the stock market. Our standard deviation of the total return was used as a one measure of the risk of an individual stock. Also betas for individual stocks are determined by simple linear regression. The variables were: total return for the stock as the dependent variable and independent variable is the total return for the stock. Since the descriptive statistics were a lot, only the necessary data was selected (below table.)

This report aims at implement two distinct approaches, which can indicate the expected return and risk of a two-stock portfolio, to generate a practical solution to risk-analyzing for stock-investing. The two approaches are Mean-Variance Approach and CAPM Approach. While we apply the Mean-Variance Approach to determine the expected return and standard deviation, we employ the CAPM approach to measure the beta and expected return of each stock. The calculations of the aforesaid mathematical characteristics will contain the weekly returns during a seven-year time period integrated with the ASX all ordinaries Accumulation Index as a substitute for the market index and Official Cash Rate (thereafter, OCR, which is the interest

Fama & French (2004, p.36) confirms that “Ratios involving stock prices have information about expected returns missed by market betas”. The issue of evaluating a model that are based on assumptions that need to be fulfilled, Fama & French (2004, p.20) argues, is that it is hard to isolate whether the assumptions are violated or the model is invalid, in this case if the discrepancies of the CAPM model is due to bad pricing or bad asset pricing model.

This summary provides a brief overview of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) as an alternative method for estimating expected returns. This paper also discusses the positive and negative effects of CAPM along with the risks of Beta and why this model has its share of drawbacks and critics in the marketplace. The first section will cover the basics of CAPM including its flaws and rewards. Next, the risks of beta and the strengths and weaknesses are discussed in conjunction with its relevance to CAPM and why it’s important to investors who are willing to take greater risks. Finally, an application is provided to show how beta affects CAPM from a financial manager’s perspective.

Richard Roll, and University and Auburn, University of Washington, and University of Chicago educated economist, began his career researching the effect of major events of stock prices. This experience likely helped him reach the two conclusions he makes in his 1977 “A Critique Of The Asset Pricing Theory’s Tests”, one of the earliest and most influential arguments against CAPM. In the paper, Roll makes two major claims: that CAPM is actually a redundant equation that just further proves the concept of mean-variance efficiency, and that it is impossible to conclusively prove CAPM. His first claim relates to mean-variance efficiency: the idea that mathematically one must be able to create a portfolio that offers the most return for a given amount of risk. Roll claims that all CAPM is doing is testing a portfolio’s mean variance efficiency, and not actually modeling out projected future returns. The second claim in the paper is that there is not enough data about market returns for CAPM to ever prove conclusive. Even if modern technologies could help alleviate some of the burden of testing market returns for publicly traded equities, there is still no way to account for the returns of less liquid markets, where there is less public information. This means it is impossible for