# Capm

**Topics:**Stock market, Capital asset pricing model, Financial markets

**Pages:**39 (13032 words)

**Published:**March 2, 2013

Jiri Novak*

* Uppsala University, Sweden E-mail: jiri.novak@fek.uu.se October 2007 Abstract: The CAPM beta is arguably the most common risk factor used in estimating expected stock returns. Despite of its popularity several past studies documented weak (if any) association between CAPM beta and realized stock returns, which led several researchers to proclaim beta “dead”. This paper shows that the explanatory power of CAPM beta is highly dependent on the way it is estimated. While the conventional beta proxy is indeed largely unrelated to realized stock returns (in fact the relationship is slightly negative), using forward looking beta and eliminating unrealistic assumptions about expected market returns turns it (highly) significant. In addition, this study shows that complementary empirical factors – size and ratio of book-to-market value of equity – that are sometimes presented as potential remedies to beta’s deficiencies do not seem to outperform beta. This suggests they are not good risk proxies on the Swedish stock market, which casts doubt on the universal applicability of the 3-factor model. Keywords: asset pricing, CAPM, beta, factor pricing models, 3-factor model, market efficiency, Sweden, Scandinavia JEL classification: G12, G14 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Dalibor Petr, Tomas ... and Johan Lyhagen for their help with the empirical analysis used in the earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank my supervisors Jan-Erik Gröjer and Mattias Hamberg for their comments and suggestions. Finally, I am grateful to all participants if the Accounting and Finance Workshop help at the Göteborg University for their feedback.

1

Is CAPM Beta Dead or Alive? Depends on How you Measure It

…

October 2007 Abstract: The CAPM beta is arguably the most common risk factor used in estimating expected stock returns. Despite of its popularity several past studies documented weak (if any) association between CAPM beta and realized stock returns, which led several researchers to proclaim beta “dead”. This paper shows that the explanatory power of CAPM beta is highly dependent on the way it is estimated. While the conventional beta proxy is indeed largely unrelated to realized stock returns (in fact the relationship is slightly negative), using forward looking beta and eliminating unrealistic assumptions about expected market returns turns it (highly) significant. In addition, this study shows that complementary empirical factors – size and ratio of book-to-market value of equity – that are sometimes presented as potential remedies to beta’s deficiencies do not seem to outperform beta. This suggests they are not good risk proxies on the Swedish stock market, which casts doubt on the universal applicability of the 3-factor model. Keywords: asset pricing, CAPM, beta, factor pricing models, 3-factor model, market efficiency, Sweden, Scandinavia JEL classification: G12, G14 Acknowledgements: …

2

1. Introduction

The introduction of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) (Sharpe, 1964, Lintner, 1965, Mossin, 1966, Black, 1972) initiated a stream in empirical research aimed at verifying the significance of CAPM beta and at identifying the determinants of expected stock returns in general. CAPM implies that there is a positive linear dependence of expected stock returns and CAPM betas (that capture the sensitivity of asset return to market return) and that CAPM beta is sufficient for explaining expected stock returns. Black, et al. (1972) performed one of the first empirical studies in the area that tested whether portfolios consisting of stocks with high betas one average generate higher returns. It soon became clear that CAPM beta does not suffice to explain the cross section of expected stock returns. Basu (1977) documented the positive significance of earnings-to-price (E/P) multiples. Banz (1981) found that size measured as the market...

References: Asgharian, H. and B. Hansson (2000), "Cross-Sectional Analysis of Swedish Stock Returns with Time-Varying Beta: The Swedish Stock Market 1983-96", European Financial Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 213. Banz, R. W. (1981), "The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 3. Bartholdy, J. and P. Peare (2001), "The Relative Efficiency of Beta Estimates", Aarhus School of Business Working Paper, Vol. No. pp. ----- ----- ----- (2005), "Estimation of Expected Return: Capm Vs. Fama and French", International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 407-427. Basu, S. (1977), "Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their PriceEarnings Ratios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis", Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 663. Berk, J. B. (1995), "A Critique of Size-Related Anomalies", Review of Financial Studies, Vol. Summer95, Vol. 8 Issue 2, No. pp. Black, F. (1972), "Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing", Journal of Business, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 444-455. Black, F., M. Jensen and M. Scholes, 1972, The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests, in M. Jensen, ed.: Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets (Praeger Publishers, New York). Danthine, J.-P. and J. B. Donaldson (2002). Intermediate Financial Theory (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.). Engsted, T. and C. Tanggaard (2004), "The Comovement of Us and Uk Stock Markets", European Financial Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 593-607. Fama, E. F. (1998), "Market Efficiency, Long-Term Returns, and Behavioral Finance", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 283-306. Fama, E. F. and K. R. French (1992), "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns", Journal of Finance, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 427-465. ----- ----- ----- (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 3-56. ----- ----- ----- (1995), "Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Earnings and Returns", Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 131. 42

----- ----- ----- (1996), "Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies", Journal of Finance, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 55-84. Fama, E. F. and J. D. Macbeth (1973), "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 607. Griffin, J. M. and M. L. Lemmon (2002), "Book-to-Market Equity, Distress Risk, and Stock Returns", Journal of Finance, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 2317-2336. Chan, K. C. and N.-F. Chen (1991), "Structural and Return Characteristics of Small and Large Firms", Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 1467-1484. Chan, K. C., N.-F. Chen and D. A. Hsieh (1985), "An Exploratory Investigation of the Firm Size Effect", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 451-471. Chan, L. K. C., Y. Hamao and J. Lakonishok (1991), "Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan", Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 1739. La Porta, R. and F. Lopez-De-Silanes (1999), "Corporate Ownership around the World", Journal of Finance, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 471. Lakonishok, J., A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny (1994), "Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk", Journal of Finance, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 1541-1578. Lintner, J. (1965), "The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets", Review of Economics & Statistics, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 13. Mossin, J. (1966), "Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market", Econometrica, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 768-783. Pearce, D. P. (1987), "Challenges to the Concept of Market Efficiency", Economic Review, Vol. No. pp. Penman, S. H. (1991), "An Evaluation of Accounting Rate-of-Return", Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 233-255. Rosenberg, B., K. Reid and R. Lanstein (1985), "Persuasive Evidence of Market Inefficiency", Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 9-16. Sharpe, W. F. (1964), "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk", Journal of Finance, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 425. Stattman, D. (1980), "Book Values and Stock Returns", The Chicago MBA: A Journal of Selected Papers, Vol. 4, No. pp. 25 - 45.

43

Please join StudyMode to read the full document