asset pricing models.doc
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
1/53
BACHELOR THESIS
AssetPricing: Theory andEvidence
Filip Hájek
Charles University in Prague
Faculty of Social Sciences
Institute of Economic Studies
ay !""#
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
2/53
ii
CharlesUniversityinPrague
acultyo!socialsciencesInstituteo!Econo"icStudies
BACHELORTHESIS
#Asset Pricing: Theoryand Evidence$
Author:ili%H&'e(
Tutor: Ph)r* To"&+ ,aro+
ield o! study: Econo"ic theory
Acade"icyear: -../0-..1
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
3/53
iii
Pronounce"ent
I confirm that I have made this $achelor%s thesis independently and that I have used onlythe sources indicated in the thesis&
'''''''''''
Eisenstadt( ay !)& !""# Filip Hájek
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
4/53
iv
Ac(no2ledge"ent:
I *ould like to thank all *ho have helped me *ith my thesis and supported me
during my studies&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
5/53
v
BACHELOR3S THESISPROPOSAL
Su4"ission deadline: Spring semester !""+,!""#
Thesis author: Filip Hájek Thesis advisor: -omá. /aro.
Title: ASSETS 5ALUATIO6:THEOR7A6) E5I)E6CE
State"ento! o4'ectives:
Ever since 0illiam Sharpe and /ohn 1intner came up *ith the capital asset
pricing model 2C3P4 there has $een an academic de$ate over its validity& 5et over #"years later( the model is still *idely used in academia as *ell as practice&
-he model *as the first apparently successful attempt to sho* ho* to assess the
risk of the cash flo* from a potential investment project and ho* to estimate the project%scost of capital( *hich is the e6pected rate of return that investors *ill demand if they are
to invest in the project& In this model( a stock%s risk is summari7ed $y its $eta *ith themarket portfolio of all invested *ealth&
8ver the years C3P has come under heavy research a$out the validity of theassumption as *ell as on the validity of the predictions and the thesis *ill try to highlight
the most important papers that has shaped this rich academic de$ate&
1ately research has also focused on $ringing alternatives to Sharpe and 1intner%sC3P& -he market9derived capital9pricing model 2CP4 is $ased on financial marketinstruments( namely $ond yields and options prices and *ill $e introduced and used for
empirical estimates&-he purpose of the thesis is to $ring comprehensive summary of the C3P
de$ate and the CP and compare models empirically&
Thesis outline:
:& Capital 3sset Pricing odela& C3P description and theoretical frame*ork
$& C3P de$ate!& arket9derived Pricing odel+& Empirical evidence#& Conclusion
Preliminary literature:
;realey(
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
6/53
vi
A4stra(t
;akalá ská práce na tma 8ceGován aktiv = -eorie a Pra6e se skládá 7e dvou
v7ájemn doplGujcch se Jást& K prvn teoretick Jásti je p edstaven C3P a
nejd4leLitj. práce 7 akademick de$aty o jeho platnosti& Aále je vysvtlen teoretickM
7áklad konkurenJnho modelu CP( kterM Jerpá informace 7 opJnch a dluhopisovMch
trh4& Následuje kapitola vnujc se kritice tohoto postupu&
Nava7ujc Jást je empirická& /sou 7de odhadnuty ceny aktiv Jty spoleJnost
o$chodovanMch na americkMch $ur7ách a to dvma alternativnmi 7p4so$y& Nejprve
pomoc odhadu koeficientu $eta danMch spoleJnost prost ednictvm metody nejmen.ch
Otverc(QdodateOnRQpomocQmetodikyQCPQmodelu&
A4stract
;achelor thesis on the topic 3sset Pricing= -heory and Evidence consists of t*o
complementary parts& In the first part( C3P is introduced and the most important
articles of the ongoing academic de$ate of its validity are follo*ed& Frame*ork of rival
model arket9derived 3sset Pricing odel 2CP4 $ased on the information from
$ond and option markets is also introduced in this chapter and its critiue is provided&
Follo*ing part is empirical& -here are estimations of asset prices of four
companies traded on the US stock e6changes employing $oth models& Firstly $eta
estimation via ordinary least suare method for C3P is done and su$seuently asset
prices computed( secondly estimates employing CP frame*ork are performed&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
7/53
vii
Content
8* Introduction**************************************************************************************************8
-* Asset valuation"odels********************************************************************************-
-*8* Ca%italasset %ricing"odel9CAP;*************************************************-
!&:&:& C3P&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& !
!&:&:&: arko*it7 portfolio theory&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& !
!&:&:&!& -o$in%s separation theorem&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
!&:&:&+& Sharpe9 1intner%s C3P &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
!&:&:& ;lack%s version of the model &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& T
-*-* CAP )e4ate**************************************************************************************8.
!&!&:& ethodology &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:"
!&!&!& Early tests &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&::
!&!&!&: ;lack( /ensen and Scholes%s study&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:!!&!&!&!& Fama and ac;eth%s study&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:!
!&!&+& Challenges &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:#
!&!&+&:& ;an7 study on si7e effect&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:#
!&!&+&!& Fama French = Is $eta dead V &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:)
!&!&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
8/53
viii
!&+& Euity return risk &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&!
!&+&& Critiue&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&!T
/* Beta esti"ation and PCcalculation*************************************************/.
/*8* CAP****************************************************************************************************/.
+&:&:& Aata&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&+"
+&:&!& arket portfolio&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&+:
+&:&+&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
9/53
:
1. Introduction
In the last four decades asset pricing models and Capital asset pricing model in
particular have $een dominating financial te6t$ooks& ;ased on the ingenious
o$servations( reasona$le assumptions and due to the seductive simplicity( *e are today
not surprised to see that C3P has still not found too many competitors&
Nonetheless *ithout the possi$ility of testing it against other models the research
focused on testing its validity and the validity of its assumptions& C3P came under
heavy testing( *hich conseuently led to the de$ate that had $rought together advocates
and opponents of the model& Auring last four decades the de$ate gre* $ut the crucialuestion is still not settled&
In recent years nonetheless ne* innovative models have emerged& Some of them
are $ased on information from derivative markets such as arket9derived asset pricing
model 2CP4 *hich utili7es information from $ond and option markets& -hese models
try to $ypass the pro$lems of C3P via totally different approaches in calculations of
asset prices and thus challenge the prevailing models&
-he aim of this thesis is to follo* in the second chapter the $irth of C3P as *ell
as to map the long and very interesting de$ate that has started( and further( to reveal the
theoretical frame*ork of CP& Su$seuently( in the third chapter this theoretical $ase
*ill $e used for estimates of asset prices of four companies operating on the US market
employing $oth models& 8$servations from the practical application of CP are
concentrated in the su$chapter !&+&& Critiue( *hich for the sake of structure is presented
in the second i&e& theoretical chapter&
-his thesis is follo*ing the previous research on the Institute of economic studies
at Charles University in Prague done $y
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
10/53
!
2. Asset valuation models
2.1. Capital asset pricing model (CAPM)
2.1.1. CAPM
-he C3P $uilds on the ground$reaking paper of Harry arko*it7 2:B!4 in
*hich he descri$es ho* to select a portfolio using the mean9variance rule 2E9K rule4 and
a latter paper of -o$in 2:BT4 *hich introduces the idea of linear efficient set and also
implies t*o steps in selection of desira$le portfolio( later kno*n as searationεtheorem&
In order to derive a C3P *e have to present their findings&
2.1.1.1 Markowitz portfolio theory
arko*it7 is one of the first to attack until then prevailing theory of only
ma6imi7ing the e6pected return that *as set among others $y 0illiams 2:B+B4& Diven
0illiams% theoretical frame*ork( investor *ould invest in an asset that $ears the highest
e6pected return *ithout taking into account a risk associated *ith it( assuming that “the
la# o% lar&e numbers #ill insure that the actual yield to the ort%olio #ill be almost the
same as the e'ected yields! 20illiams :B+B( pp& )T9)B4& arko*it7 ackno*ledges the
need of using an e6pected returns and allo*ing the returns for risk :
and a trade9off
$et*een them& “Thereεisεaεrateεatε#hichεinvestorεcanε&ainεe'ectedεreturnεbyεtakin&εon
variance, or reducevarianceby&ivin&ue'ectedreturn(!2arko*it7 :B!( pp& B4
arko*it7 $uilds his theory on the follo*ing assumptions 2/ensen :BT+4=
2i4 Investors select portfolio at time t9: that produces random return < at t&
2ii4 -he uantities of all assets are given and short sales are restricted 2 "≥i ) 4 for
all i&
2iii4 Investors are risk averse 2i&e& they minimi7e portfolio return variance given
e6pected return 4
:
Follo*ing the *ork of /&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
11/53
+
2iv4 Investors are not saturated 2i&e& they ma6imi7e portfolio e6pected return given
variance4
2v4 3ll assets are perfectly divisi$le and perfectly liuid( i&e& all assets are
marketa$le and there are no transaction costs
2vi4 -here are no ta6es
In order to solve the pro$lem of efficient portfolio selection arko*it7 considers
e6pected return as a random varia$le( that can $e descri$ed $y t*o moments= mean 2 iµ 4
and variance 2var W!σ 4&
Using the pro$a$ility theory *e can derive for the e6pected return and variance of
the portfolio the follo*ing formulas&
For e6pected return of portfolio=
∑=
=n
i
ii ' E :
µ 2!&:4
and for variance of the return of portfolio
∑∑= =
=n
i
n
+
+ii+ ' ': :
! σσ 2!&!4
*here E is e6pected return of portfolio(!
σ is variance of the portfolio( i ' is the
percentage of the investor%s asset *hich are allocated to the i th
security( + ' is the
percentage of the investor%s asset *hich are allocated to the + th security( and iµ is the
e6pected return of ith
security& i+σ is covariance $et*een iεand +εsecurity&th th
Covariance lies in the very heart of the portfolio selection theory and therefore
needs to $e defined properly& Covariance is defined as follo*s=
+ii+i+ σσρσ = 2!&+4
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
12/53
#
*here i+σ is covariance $et*een ith
and +th
security( iσ is standard deviation of ith
security
2 i
σ var 4( +
σ is standard deviation of j th security and i+
ρ is a correlation coefficient
$et*een securities iεand +& Correlation coefficient varies $et*een 9: and X:& -he value of
X: implies perfect correlation i&e& fully align movement( 9: implies perfect negative
correlation i&e& securities move inversely of each other and " implies independent
movement of $oth securities&
Aue to the imperfect correlation $et*een securities( diversification is rational and
desira$le( $ecause portfolio of t*o imperfectly correlated securities *ill achieve
*eighted average of e6pected returns together *ith lo*er than *eighted variance of t*o
securities( *ith *eights $eing the portions of *ealth invested& 3s to the selection of
reasona$le iµ and i+σ arko*it7 suggests “asεtoεtentative iµ and i+σ is to use the
observed iµ σ , i+ %orsomeeriodo% the ast(!2arko*it7:B!(pp&B:4
-he E9K rule restricts the desira$le portfolios to the ones on the efficiency frontier
sho*n on Figure :& ean9variance efficient portfolio lie a$ove 2;4 in the Figure: and
investors *ill select portfolio from this frontier according to their aversion to the risk( in
here represented $y the indifference curves& -he optimal portfolio *ill lie on the point
2C4 *here efficient set of portfolios touches *ith the indifference curves of investor(
giving him the highest possi$le utility *ith given restrains&
-i&ure.: Marko#it/ e%%iciency set
0ource: 0hare, Ale'ander.112,( .3.
;
I+ I! I:
Standard deviation of portfolio
E6pected
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
13/53
2.1.1.2. Toin!s separation theorem
-he ne6t ground $reaking *ork that marks the evolution of C3P is /& -o$in%s
paper 4iquidityεre%erenceεasεbehaviorεto#ardsεriskε2:BT4 in *hich the author discusses
the liuidity preference in respect to the mean and variance&
He allo*s investors to choose $et*een holding their *ealth in cash or in consoles(
*hich are in the a$sence of inflation risk9free in nominal sense( and further sho*s that
given these t*o assets( different investors( *ith regard to their risk a*areness( choose a
different optimum point of investment on the investment opportunity line 2"(C4 in Figure
!( i&e& different portions in the t*o assets&
-i&ure5: Tobin6sCaitalMarket 4ine
0ource:Reilly, 7ro#n.118,(593
3dding risk9free $orro*ing 2cash4 and lending greatly simplifies arko*it7%s
efficient set&
Consider a portfolio that invests the proportion 'εof portfolio funds in a risk9free
security and .'εin portfolio &
& % R ' 'R R 4:2 −+= 2!
than the e6pected return is simplified 2due to var 2 < 4 W " $y definition4f
m %
R ' 'R ER 4:2 −+=2!&4
arket
portfoclio 2C4
1ending
< W 2"4fC
E6pected
return of
portfolio
Standard deviation of portfolio
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
14/53
)
as *ell as the variance
4var24:24var2!
m R ' R −= 2!&)4
-hese euations imply that efficient portfolios can $e o$tained $y varying 6& -hey
then plot a straight line 2C14 in Figure !& -he line starts at < 26 W :4( runs to the pointf
C 26 W "( i&e& all funds invested in C4 and continues on for portfolios that involve
$orro*ing at the risk9free rate 26 Y "4& -he key result is that *ith unrestricted risk9free
$orro*ing and lending( all efficient portfolios are com$ination of the single tangency
portfolio 2C4 and risk9free asset 2"4 *ith either lending at the risk9free rate 2points $elo*
C along the line from < 4 or risk9free $orro*ing 2points a$ove C along the line from < 4&f f
ore importantly *hen ela$orating on the arket portfolio 2C4 -o$in proves
“that the roortionate comosition o% the noncash assets is indeendent o% their
a&&re&ate share o% the investment balance( This %act makes it ossible to describe
investor6s decisions as i% there #ere a sin&le noncash asset, a comosite %ormed by
combinin& the multitude o% actual noncash assets in %i'ed roortions(“ 2-o$in :BT( pp& T#4 *hich restricts arko*it7%s efficient portfolio set into linear com$ination of risk9
free rate and one optimal portfolio as seen in Figure ! creating linear efficient set 2"(C4&
-his implies that process of choosing optimal investment “;canεbeεbrokenεdo#n
into t#o hases: %irst, the choice o% a unique otimum combination o% risky assets< and
second, a searate choiceconcernin& theallocationo% %undsbet#eensuchacombination
and a sin&le riskless asset! 2Sharpe :B)#( pp!)4( *hich has later $ecome kno*n as
-o$in%s separation theorem&
-hese t*o papers *ere the theoretical cornerstones necessary for the $irth of
Sharpe91inter%s C3P&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
15/53
2.1.1.". #harpe$ %intner!s CAPM
In :B)# Sharpe and in :B) 1inter have pu$lished papers concerning the prices!
of assets under conditions of risk& In their *ork they tried to esta$lish a theory that *ould
ans*er the crucial uestion= ho* to precisely evaluate the relationship $et*een higher
risk 2variance4 and e6pected return and ho* to distinguish the part of the risk that market
values( $ecause Sharpe o$serves that “throu&hεdiversi%ication,εsomeεo%εtheεriskεinherent
in an assetcan be avoided so thatits total risk is obviously not the relevant in%luence on
itsrice(! 2Sharpe:B)#(pp!)4
Sharpe and 1intner e6tended assumptions of arko*it7% model *ith the
follo*ing
2i4 3ll investors can $orro* and lend an unlimited amount at an e6ogenously
given risk9free rate of interest < and there are no restrictions on short sales of f
any asset&+
2ii4 Perfect capital markets&
2iii4 3ll investors have identical su$jective estimates of the means( variances( and
covariances of return among all assets&
-i&ure3:0ecurity Market 4ine
0ource:o#n&rahbasedonReilly, 7ro#n.118, ( 593
and Elton,=ruber.11., ( 51>,3>?
!Similar unpu$lished *ork of /& -reynor = >-o*ards a theory of market value of risky asset? 2:B):4 comes
to the similar conclusions&+-his assumption is ho*ever not ne*( $ut *e can see a clear analogy in -o$in%s *ork&
:&"
arket
portfolio 2C4
1ending
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
16/53
T
0ith complete agreement a$out distri$utions of returns( all investors form the
same tangency portfolio C *ith < & In order for the market to clear assets in the marketf
portfolio 2C4 must $e priced so its *eight in given time is its total market value divided
$y the total value of all risky assets and such portfolio includes all assets&
In such situation *e can derive the familiar Sharpe91intner C3P risk9return
relation
i % m % i R ER R ER β42 −+= 2!&4
*here iβ W4var2
4(cov2
m
mi
R
R Rcan $e ver$ally interpreted as the covariance risk of asset iεin
portfolio C( measured relative to the risk of the portfolio( *hich is just an average of the
covariance risks of all assets i&e& the measure of asset%s contri$ution to overall portfolio
risk&&
-herefore covariance is the right measure of risk as /ensen notes= > Althou&h
investors take the variance @or equivalently the standard deviation o% their ort%olio
returns as an aroriate measure o% risk, there results imly that the aroriatemeasure o% the risk o% any individual asset is its covariance #ith the market ort%olio,
4(cov2 mi R R , andnotitso#nvariance, 42 R!
iσ (! 2/ensen :BT+4
2.1.1.&. 'lack!s version of the model
3ssumption that any investor may $orro* or lend any amounts he *ants at the
risk less rate of interest *as felt as the most restrictive one and there *as a feeling that
the model *ould $e changed su$stantially if this assumption *ould $e dropped& 3lso
research *as sho*ing that model using risk9free rate doesn%t hold very good the
empirical findings 2;lack( /ensen( and Scholes :B!4( $ut rather the t*o factor model
2!&T4 holds&
In the very same year ;lack pu$lished a paper in *hich he proves that in
euili$rium the portfolios of all investors consist of a linear com$ination of t*o $asic
portfolios& -his paper is one of the first contri$utions into the C3P de$ate on *hich *e
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
17/53
B
*ill focus in the follo*ing su$9chapter( $ut for the sake of clarity and structure *e *ill
present it here&
0hile this point *as recogni7ed earlier ( ;lack sho*ed that under a$sence of #
risk9free $orro*ing and lending 2$ut *ithout restrictions on short selling4 “everyεe%%icient
ort%olio may be #ritten as a #ei&hted combination o% the market ort%olio m and the
minimum variance /eroβ ort%olio/(!2;lack:B!( pp!4
;lack demonstrates that in euili$rium the e6pected return on any asset *ill $e
given $y
mi / ii ER ER ER ββ +−= 4:2 2!&T4
*here / ER is the e6pected return on the 7ero $eta portfolio( other defined as previously&
-herefore the e6pected return on all assets is still a linear function of their systematic risk
and the euation is similar to the Sharpe91intner( only *ith the e6ception that / ER plays
the role of < &f
#Sharpe 2:B"4 chap& # in /ensen
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
18/53
:"
2.2. CAPM Debate
-he Sharpe91intner asset pricing model has received since its introduction in mid
)"%s *idespread attention and has $een heavily tested during the last #" years& -his
section *ill try to descri$e this long academic de$ate a$out the model%s validity& -here
has $een large amount of papers pu$lished that are connected to the topic( ho*ever in this
study only the major papers are used&
Included are studies that support C3P 2;lack( /ensen and ScholesZ Fama and
ac;eth4( studies that challenge it 2;an7Z Fama and French4 and studies that challengethese challenges 2;lackZ 3mihud( Christensen and endelsonZ /agannathan and 0ang4
2.2.1. Methodolo(y
Euation 2!&4 has three testa$le implications 2Fama and ac;eth :B+4=)
2i4 -he relationship $et*een the e6pected return on a security and its risk in any
efficient portfolio mεis linear and up*ard sloping
2ii4 iβ is a complete measure of the risk of security iεin the efficient portfolio m(
i&e& no other measure of the risk of iεappears in the euation 2!&4
2iii4 In a market of risk averse investors( higher risk should $e associated *ith
higher e6pected returnZ i&e& ">− % m ER ER
Euation 2!&4 is in terms of e6pected returns( $ut its implications must $e tested
*ith data on period9$y9period security and portfolio returns& In order to test the
implications the follo*ing stochastic euation is e6amined&
+
B
+ + r εγ βγ γ +++= ∑ =!:" 2!&B4
-he significance of the papers is su$jective( and author apologi7es if the reader is missing some *orks(
that are $elieved to $e important as *ell& Such is the nature of su$jective9ness&) 3s for the ;lack%s version of the model( third implication must $e modified to ">− / m ER ER &
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
19/53
::
*here rεis an estimate of the e6pected e6cess return on portfolio 2 % ER ER − 4( β is an
estimate of $eta for portfolio ( :γ is the market risk premium for $earing one unit of $eta
risk 2 % m ER ER − 4Z "γ is the 7ero $eta rate( the e6pected return on an asset *hich has a
$eta of 7eroZ + for j W !(&&(j are non9$eta e6planatory varia$les assumed to $e relevant
for asset pricing and ε is a random distur$ance term in the regression euation&
In such a regression euation *e are trying to determine *hich e6planatory
varia$les are significant& -o do so *e use the econometric theory frame*ork and *e
e6amine the t9statistics of the respectedγ coefficients looking for significance&
-he estimated coefficients "γ and :γ o$tained from the regression are then
compared to < 2Sharpe91intner version4 or return on 7ero9$eta security 2;lack version4f
and % m R R − and / m ER R − respectively& m R is an average return on the market inde6(
*hich is usually taken as a pro6y for market return( over the period&
2.2.2. )arly tests
-he first test of C3P *as pu$lished $y Aouglas 2:B)B4& Aouglas regressed the
returns on a large cross9sectional sample of common stocks on their variance and on their
covariance *ith an inde6 constructed for the sample& He came to the same results as
1inter 2unpu$lished4& 3ccording to their findings for seven separate five9year periods
from :B!) to :B)"( the average reali7ed return *as significantly positively related to the
variance of the security%s return over the time $ut not to the covariance as the model
predicted &T
iller and Scholes revie*ed the theory and Aouglas91intner evidence and cameB
to the conclusion that these results are mainly due to omitted varia$le $ias(
3rithmetic averages of annual( uarterly( or monthly returns have generally $een used for $oth % R and
m R ( $ut a num$er of authors have also used average continuously compounded rates as *ell& 2/ensen
:BT+4T
In 1intner%s test the coefficient on the residual variance *as positive and as significant as the iβ term(2$oth having t9values greater then )4B
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
20/53
:!
heteroscedasticity and errors in varia$le& -herefore nothing can $e said a$out the validity
of the results *ith certainty&
2.2.2.1 'lack* +ensen and #choles!s study
;lack( /ensen and Scholes 2;/S4 2:B!4 present some additional tests of Sharpe9
1intner 2S14 asset pricing model& 0hen testing the original S1 model( they conclude that
risk9free rate doesn%t hold to the empirical findings&
-hey find that the average returns on these portfolios are not consistent *ith
euation 2!&4 especially in the post*ar period :B#)9))& -heir estimates of the e6pected
returns on portfolios of stocks at lo* levels of iβ are consistently higher than predicted
$y euation 2!&4( and their estimates of the e6pected returns on portfolios of stocks at
high levels of iβ are consistently lo*er the predicted $y the same euation&
3ccording to their findings >t*o9factor model? 2!&T4 does a $etter jo$ in
e6plaining the risk9return relationship and further *ork of ;lack also provides theoretical
$acking of these results&
2.2.2.2. ,ama and Mac'eth!s study
Fama and ac;eth 2F4 in their study Risk,εReturn,εandεEquilibrium:εEmirical
Tests 2:B!4follo*ingthe;/S *ork( haveusedthe follo*ingregression
iiiii ur εσγ βγ βγ γ ++++= 42+!
!:" 2!&:"4
*here ir is an e6pected return on security i, "γ is an e6pected return on a 7ero9$eta
portfolio( :γ is an e6pected market premium(!
iβ is the average of the!β for all
individual securities in portfolio i( 42uiσ is the average of the residual standard
deviations and iε is a random distur$ance term in the regression euation&
-heir tests *ere carried out on the !" portfolios constructed from all securities on
N5SE in the period /anuary :B+9/une :B)T& -he portfolios *ere constructed in a *ay
that *ould minimi7e the measurement error $ias pro$lem in cross9sectional estimates of
coefficient t t t !:" [([([ γ γ γ and t +[γ in euation 2!&:"4&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
21/53
:+
Specifically F first estimated $eta of each stock during one period and then
formed portfolios on the $asis of these estimated $etas& Ne6t( they re9estimated the $eta
of each portfolio $y using the returns in the su$seuent period& -his ensured that the
estimated $etas for each portfolio *ere largely un$iased and free from error& Finally(
these portfolio $etas *ere plotted against returns in an even later period&2;realey and
ayers :BTT4
-he F tests are $ased on the e6amination of time series of coefficients in the
euation 2!&:"4( estimated from the cross9sectional regression for each month& -he focus
*as put on tests of three major testa$le implications of euili$rium properties of the t*o9
parameter model=
2H:4 -he risk return relationship should $e linear 9 i&e& "42 ! =γ E
2H!4 No measure of risk in additional to β should $e systematically related to
e6pected returns 9 i&e& "42 + =γ E
2H+4 -he e6pected risk9return tradeoff should $e positive 9
i&e& "42 : >−= om ER ER E γ
3part from these the test for the implication of Sharpe91inter model *as
done
2H#4 % R E =42 "γ
In addition they provide tests of the proposition that each of the period9$y9period
coefficient are eual to 7ero( "[[[[ +!:" ==== t t t t γ γ γ γ and the implication of capital
market efficiency that each of the coefficient must $ehave as a fair game through time& If
the latter reuirement *ouldn%t hold( there *ould $e a trading rules $ased on the past
values of the +γ %s *hich *ould yield a$ove normal profits \ thus a violation of the
efficient markets hypothesis& 2/ensen :B!( pp& !!4:"
From the e6amination of the average values and tεstatistics for the estimated
coefficientsγ from the euation 2!&:"4 for the entire period and for various su$9periods
:"Citation from Fama( Eugene F& :B" >Efficient Capital arkets= 3
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
22/53
:#
F conclude that on the level of significance= ?oneεcannotεre+ectεtheεhyothesisεD.
3 that the ricin& o% securities is in line #ith the imlications o% the t#oarameter
model %or e'ected returns( And &iven a t#oarameter ricin& model, the behavior o%
returns throu&h time is consistent #ith an e%%icient caital market ? 2F9 :B+( pp& )!4
since the average values of !γ and +γ are generally small and insignificantly different
from 7ero&
3s for the H#( Fama and ac;eth confirm the ;/S results( that 42 "γ E does not
eual Rε& -herefore the S1 hypothesis is inconsistent *ith the data( on the other hand is %
not contradictory to the ;lack%s version of the C3P&
-he F tests of the period9$y9period values of the +γ indicate( that *hile *e
cannot reject the H: and H!( *e can reject them in each month& -herefore *hile there are
no 2systematic4 nonlinearities and effects of non9portfolio risk on security returns( such
effects appear in a random fashion from period to period& -hey conclude that even though
adding these t*o varia$les to the regression raises its average adjusted coefficient of
determination for the entire period( >theεkno#led&eεo%εtheseεe%%ectsεisεo%εnoεhelεtoεthe
investor since the coe%%icients themselves behave as a %air &ame throu&h time( Thus, the
investor can aarently do no better to actas i% the t#o%actor model, su&&ested by 7B0,
is valid &? 2/ensen:BT+(pp&!#4
2.2.". Challen(es
In "%s the C3P passed its first major empirical tests& Ho*ever in :BT: came
one of the first studies suggesting that C3P might $e missing something( only to $e
follo*ed decade later $y study of Fama and French 2:BB!4 that *as *arning that C3Pmight $e missing everything&
2.2.".1. 'anz study on size effect
In :BT: ;an7 tests *hether the si7e of the firm 2market value *as used as a
pro6y4 cannot e6plain the residual variation in the average returns across assets that is not
e6plained $y C3P%s $eta&
-he empirical tests are $ased on the regression euation
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
23/53
:
immiiir εφφφγ βγ γ +−++= ],4^2!:" 2!&::4
*here rεis an e6pected return on security i,i "γ is an e6pected return on a 7ero9$eta
portfolio( :γ is an e6pected market premium( iφ is a market value of security i( mφ is a
market value( and iε is a random distur$ance term in the regression euation&
;an7 uses similar procedure to the portfolio9grouping of F 2:B!4 & He creates::
! portfolios containing similar num$er of securities( first to one of five on the $asis of
the market value of the stock( then the securities in each of those five are in turn assigned
to one of five portfolios on the $asis of their $eta&2;an7 :BT:( pp&4
For the entire period( :B+)9:B( ;an7 o$tains the follo*ing estimates 2and t 9
statistics4= ^ % R−"γ ] W "&""# 2!&)4( ^ 42: % m R R −−γ ] W 9"&"""B! 29:&"4( and !γ W
9"&"""! 29!&B!4&
;ecause the t 9statistic for !γ is large in a$solute value the si7e effect is
statistically significant& -he negativity of the estimated value implies that the shares of
firms *ith large market values have had smaller returns( on average( than similar small
firms&He finds that the >avera&eεreturnεonεsmallεstocksεareεtooεhi&hε&ivenεtheir β
estimates, and avera&e returnson lar&estocksaretoo lo#&? 2Famaand French :BB!(pp&
#!4 His estimates of "γ are consistent *ith Fama and ac;eth 2:B+4 findings( i&e&
contradicting the Sharpe91intner model&
-o assess the importance of these results( ;an7 tried to specify the >si7e
premium?& He constructs t*o portfolios( each *ith !" assets& 8ne portfolio containing
only stocks of small firms( the other containing only large firms& -he portfolios are
constructed in such a *ay that they have same $eta& Auring the :B+)9:B he concludes
that “theεavera&eεe'cessεreturnεD%romεholdin&εveryεsmallε%irmsεlon&εandεveryεlar&eε%irms
short is,on avera&e.(F5 ercent er month or .1(9 ercenton anannual basis(! 2;an7
:BT:( pp& :9:)4
-hus( the C3P seems to $e missing a significant factor= firm si7e& -his
o$servation has $ecome kno*n as the si/eεe%%ect &
::
In length descri$ed in ;lack( Fisher and Scholes( yron& 2:B#4 :!εTheεe%%ectsεo%εdividendεyieldεand dividendolicyon commonstockricesand returns!( /ournalofFinancial Economics:(ay( :9!!&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
24/53
:)
2.2.".2. ,ama - ,rench Is eta dead /
In their paper “TheεCross0ectionεo%εE'ectedε0tockεReturns!ε2:BB!4 Fama and
French estimated the relations in the euation 2!&B4 for the period from /uly :B)+ to
Aecem$er :BB"& Using this cross9sectional regression they confirm that si7e( earnings9
price( de$t9euity( and $ook9to market ratios add to the e6planation of e6pected returns
provided $y market $eta&
-hey grouped stocks for firms listed on the N5SE( 3E_ and N3SA3` into :"
si7e classes and then into :" $eta classes( for a total of :"" portfolios& 3naly7ing firstly
the $eta and market si7e they o$tained the estimates of :γ W 9"&+ *ith t 9statistic of 9:&!:
and !γ W 9"&: *ith t 9statistic of 9+: respectively as seen in the ta$le :&
3s for the si7e itself( the average slope from monthly regression of returns on si7e
is 9"&: ( *ith t 9statistic of 9!&T& -his negative relation persist no matter *hat varia$les
are in the regression euation and more importantly the t 9statistic is al*ays close to or
more than ! in a$solute terms and thus si7e effect is ro$ust to the inclusion of other
varia$les in the :B)+9:BB" returns&
;eta is doing uite poorly in respect to si7e( ho*ever *hen left alone as the only
e6planatory varia$le it does even *orse& -he average slope from the regressions of
returns is "&: per month *ith t 9statistic of mere ")& Fama and French conclude= “Gn
contrast to the consistent e'lanatory o#er o% si/e, the re&ression sho# that market
β does not hel e'lain avera&e stock returns %or .1?3.11>! and “#e can also reort
that β sho#s no o#er to e'lain avera&e returns in re&ression that use various
combinations o% β #ith si/e, booktomarket equity, levera&e, and EHP(! 2Fama and
French :BB!( pp& #+T4
3s for the other e6planatory varia$les( FF find that the com$ination of si7e and $ook9to9market euity seems to a$sor$ the roles of leverage and E,P in average stock
returns&
-he conseuences of their findings are severe& If market $eta fails to e6plain
e6pected returns( then the market portfolio is not efficient( and the evidence on the si7e of
market premium is irrelevant& -he punch line is simple= if $eta is dead( so is the C3P&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
25/53
:
Table.(:Avera&e 0loes@tstatistics%rom MonthbyMonthRe&ressiono% 0tockReturns
on β ,0i/e,7ooktoMarket Equity,4evera&e, andEHP: Buly.1?3 to "ecember.11>
0ource: [email protected], (231
2.2.&. 0esponses
-he Fama and French 2:BB!4 study has itself $een challenged& 8$viously most
claims have $een to*ards F9F findings that $eta has no role for e6plaining cross9sectional
variation in returns( that si7e has an important role as *ell as $ook9to9market euity&
3nother line of arguments against their findings stems from the disagreement on*hether value9*eighted portfolio of all stocks listed in N5SE and 3E_ is a reasona$le
pro6y for the return on the market portfolio of all assets( and *hether assuming that $etas
are constant over time is reasona$le&
2.2.&.1. 'lack
8ne of the first *ho stood up against FF study and pointed out that they are in
some aspects contradicting their o*n finding and even that some of them are mostly due
to data mining *as ;lack 2:BB+4& 3s a clear e6ample he chose the >si7e effect?&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
26/53
:T
In :BT: ;en7 found that si7e matters and favors small companies& Fama and
French e6tended the time up to :BB" and found no si7e effect at all in the period of
2:BT:9:BB"4 *hether or not they control for $eta& Ho*ever that did not stop them from
concluding that si7e is one of the varia$les that >captures? the cross9sectional variation in
average stock return&
3ccording to ;lack such anomalies as >si7e effect? might $e just as *ell just a
result of data mining& Since there are literally thousands of researchers looking for profit
opportunities in security and all of them looking at roughly the same data( “onceεinεa
#hile, +ust by chance, a strate&y #ill seem to have #orked consistently in the ast( The
researcher #ho %inds it #rites it u, and #e have a ne# anomaly( 7ut it &enerallyvanishes as soon as it6s discovered! 2;lack :BB+( pp& B4 *hich seems to $e the case(
since after the paper *as pu$lished small firms had tame and inconsistent performance&
-he lack of theoretical $acking of their findings also points out to the possi$ility
of data mining as is the e6ample of ratio $ook value to the market value of the firm&
3ccording to ;lack “theεastεsuccessεo%εthisεratioεmayεbeεdueεmoreεtoεtheεmarket
ine%%iciencies than “riced %actors! o% the kind that -ama and -rench %avor! 2;lack
:BB+( pp& :"4 3nnouncements of the death of $eta thus to him seemed premature&
2.2.&.2.Amihud* Christensen and Mendelson
3mihud( Christensen and endelson 23C4 took a different approach and tried
to use more efficient statistical methods& Using the same data as FF they “obtainedεa
si&ni%icantly ositive coe%%icient o% avera&e return on β ( An additional imrovement in
statistical si&ni%icance #as obtained #hen =40 #as alied to account %or
heteroskedasticity over time and across ort%olios as #ell as crossort%olio
correlations(! 23mihud( Christensen and endelson :BB!( pp& :)4 -he results *ere also
ro$ust to the data used&
3nother source of possi$le invalidity of FF findings stems from the data used and
the *ay portfolios are selected& FF used the portfolio selection method esta$lished $y
F( *here stocks are selected only in they had return data for the year of study and for
the preceding seven years& -he deletion of stocks that *ere delisted during the year of
study leads to >survivorship $ias? 9 the tendency for failed companies to $e e6cluded
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
27/53
:B
from performance studies due to the fact that they no longer e6ist or due to the merge
and acuisition&
If( for e6ample( high9risk stocks are more likely to $e delisted due to $ankruptcy(
e6cluding them from the sample makes the average return of the surviving stocks higher
than the average return of all stocks in that risk group( *hen accounting for the loss due
to $ankruptcy& In such a case( survivorship $ias may create the appearance of a positive
risk9return relationship *here none e6ist&
3C develop a method that tries to eliminate this $ias $y adjusting the returns
and employing D1S methodology& -his approach also implies that return9 β relationship
*as positive and significant&
2.2.&.". +a(annathan and an(
/agannathan and 0ang argue that poor empirical support of the C3P might $e
due to the inappropriate pro6y for the aggregate *ealth portfolio of all agents in the
economy& ost empirical studies of the C3P assume that the return on a $road stock
market inde6( like N5SE and 3E_( might $e a reasona$le pro6y for the true market
portfolio&
-he study of Aia79Dimene7( Presscott( Fit7gerald and 3lvare7 2:BB!4 points out
that( >almostεt#othirdsεo%εnon&overnmentεtan&ibleεassetsεareεo#nedεbyεtheεhousehold
sector, and only onethird o% the cororate assets are %inanced by equity(? Furthermore(
intangi$le assets( such as human capital( are omitted in stock market inde6es& 3n
evidence that strongly undermines the *ell spread $elieve&
/agannathan and 0ang 2:BB+4 try to tackle this pro$lem $y $roadening the market
inde6 and including human capital in their measure of *ealth&:!
Since human capital is
uno$serva$le they pro6y it *ith the gro*th in per capita income&
-heir version of C3P then degenerate into
labour
l
v#
i ER βαβαα !:" ++= 2!&:!4
:!
Follo*ing ayers 2:B+4& ayers *as the first to point out the importance of including return to humancapital in measuring the return to the aggregate *ealth portfolio& 2taken from /agannathan and 0ang( :BB+4
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
28/53
!"
*here ERεis the e6pected return on portfolio p(iv#
β is the risk of portfolio p relative to
the value9*eighted portfolio of all stocks traded on N5SE and 3E_( and labour
l
β is the
risk of the portfolio p relative to *ealth due to the human capital&:+
0ith human capital included in this *ay /agannathan and 0ang sho* that the
C3P model is a$le to e6plain !T percent of the cross9sectional variation in average
returns in the :"" portfolios e6amined $y Fama and French 2:BB!4& -his is a very
significant raise from :&+ that can $e done *ithβ alone&
2.2.. Conclusion
-he Sharpe91intner C3P has gone over the course of #" years under heavy
research a$out its validity *hich *e have follo*ed in this su$9chapter& -his line of de$ate
ho*ever also led to parallel research&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
29/53
!:
6& -he $ehavioral C3P $y Statman and Shefrin 2:BB#4 incorporating the noise
tradersJ $eliefs
of *hich *e have ela$orated on the ;lack%s rela6ation of riskless $orro*ing assumption
and some others are dealt *ith in @eller 2!""+4& 0e have not $een follo*ing this line of
C3P de$ate for the reasons *e have already mentioned( $ut it is important to highlight
the conseuences of this de$ate&
Even though many su$seuent models are either the variants or e6tensions of the
original theory of portfolio selection of arko*it7 and they are often not empirically
ro$ust they have enriched the C3P de$ate& -hey ho*ever provide a very valua$le
$enchmark( so *e can see if the assets are correctly valued and economically justified in
terms of their e'εanteεfundamentals as *ell as their e'εostε performance&
No matter the length of the de$ate( it has never lost on intensity as *ell as uality&
8ver the course of forty years *e have learned a$out C3P greatly ho*ever de$ate%s
outcome is still uncertain&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
30/53
!!
2.". Market$derived asset pricin( model 3MCPM4
Diven the fierce academic de$ate a$out the usefulness of C3P in reality(
research has $een done in the field in order to come up *ith a ne* model of asset pricing
that *ould overcome the pro$lems $edeviled in the C3P formula&
8ne of the ne*ly introduced models is the market9derived asset pricing model
2CP4 $y cNulty( 5eh( Schul7e and 1u$atkin 2!""!4 that *ill $e introduced in this
section&
Instead of focusing on dra*ing information on the historical stock9to9marketcorrelation( it tries to derive the information from the options market and yields on
government and corporate $onds& Such approach has an advantage over $eta since it
ena$les investor to use e6 ante data and also give the possi$ility to derive different rates
according to the time period of the investment( compared to a >fit9for9all? $eta& Ho*ever
it also has some $ottlenecks( *hich *ill $e discussed later&
2.".1. Assumptions aout the risk
CP is trying to define the risk premiums that investors value( and give them a
proper price tag& In order to come up *ith the risk premium that investors reuire for
their investment( CP $reaks the overall risk do*n into three parts&
2i4 National confiscation risk
9 *hich measures the risk that an investor *ill lose the value of investment
due to the national policy
2ii4 Corporate default risk
9 *hich measures the risk that a company *ill default as a result of
mismanagement independent of macroeconomic considerations
2iii4 Euity returns risk
9 *hich reflects the risk that euity investor has $ecause of the residual
claim on the company%s earnings is secondary to de$t holders% claim in
$ankruptcy
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
31/53
!+
2.".2. 5ational confiscation and corporate default risk
Information needed for valuing $oth these risks are o$tained from the $ond
market&
;y definition $ond is certificate issued $y a company or government that
promises repayment of $orro*ed money at a set rate of interest on a particular date& 0hat
interests us is the rate of interest that government or corporation has to pay to investors
and its logic& Even though U&S& -reasury ;ills are often referred to as a risk9free
investment they $ear an interest( in order to compensate investor for the risk of default(
confiscation or runa*ay inflation& In the case of the corporation( part of the $ond yield is
due to the risk associated *ith the mismanagement of the company that is $eyond the
po*ers of managers&
Kaluing these t*o types of risk is fairly simple& Compensation for the national
confiscation risk is reflected in the government $ond rate for a given period of time& -he
corporate default risk is company credit spread 9 the premium that a corporation has to
pay to its investors on the top of government $onds&
Chart.(:Term0tructure o% 7ondIields
0ource:###(bonda&e(comquotes%rom 51(3(5>>2
3s seen on the e6ample of 0al art Stores Inc& in the Chart : national
confiscation risk constitute for the majority of the overall risk compensated $y the yield
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
al Mart #tores Inc. Term structure of 'ond 6ields
governmemt bond rate company credit spread
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
32/53
!#
on corporate $ond and overall rate is rising in time& For companies that have no $onds
outstanding( yields can $e determined $y looking at the de$t of companies *ith
euivalent credit ratings( as done in our case &:#
2.".". 'lack$#choles ,ormula
Kaluation of the euity return risk( *hich derives most of the information from
options market( is $ased on the ;lack9Scholes Formula that *as presented in the paper
“The ricin& o% otions and cororate liabilities! 2:B:4& In order to present its
computation $asics of the formula have to $e provided&
-he essential idea $ehind the pricing formula is to set up a package of investment
in the stock and loan that *ill e6actly replicate the payoffs from the option& 8nce *e are
a$le to price the stock and the loan( *e can price the option&
Even though valuating of such a package seems tedious( ;lack and Scholes came
up *ith the follo*ing formula that calculates the price of put option=
4242 :! d 0J d J )e P rT −−−= − 2!&:+4
*here
t t
rt ) 0 d σ
σ !:4ln2
: ++
= 2!&:#4
and
t d d σ−= :! 2!&:4
and
∫ ∞−
−=
't
dt e ' J !
!
:
!
:42
π2!&:)4
and finally
42lnvar :!
−= t t 0 0 σ 2!&:4
P is the put option price( S is the stock price( N2'4 is the cumulative normal distri$ution
function( _ is the strike price( r is the annuali7ed risk9free interest rate 2as a decimal4( t is
:#
In this case uote for the 8ntario Prov Cda $ond *as used for year !""T and Citigroup Inc $ond for year !":"& ;oth companies have the same rating as 0al art Stores& Inc&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
33/53
!
the time to e6piry 2in years4 and σ is the annuali7ed standard deviation of stock returns
as a decimal&
2.".&. )7uity return risk
Euity returns risk is the risk associated *ith the position of shareholders& In case
the company goes $ankrupt( they *ill stay *ith their claims at the very end and therefore
reuire for such risk a premium& In order to calculate itZ CP uses the follo*ing four
step calculation& 8nce such premium is calculated it can $e added to the previous t*o and
overall risk premium is achieved&
I* Calculationo! the!or2ard 4rea(
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
34/53
!)
*here AIK is current dividend( " P is current share price and &εis the e6pected rate of
dividend gro*th( *hich authors of CP assume to $e 7ero&:
8nce the minimal
reuired capital gain rate is o$tained( the price of the stock *hich needs to $e reached at
the end of the period in order to persuade the investor to invest in stock rather than $ond
can $e calculated using the standard future value formula 2;realey and yers !"""( pp&
#+4
t i P -* 4:2" += 2!&!"4
*here FK is future value( iεis minimal capital gain rate derived earlier and tεis the length
in years of the investor%s holding period&
II* Esti"ation o! the stoc(3s !uture volatility
Diven the calculated minimal price investor reuires( our focus shifts to the
likelihood that such price *ill $e achieved and *hat are the costs of ensuring such
outcome& 8ptions market and option valuation formula are used in order to derive such
an information&
Prices of options reflect truly the markets level of uncertainty a$out the a$ility of
the company to deliver the e6pected cash flo*s& High degree of uncertainty is tied closely
*ith the high volatility of the stock option( until the actual cash flo* proves other*ise& In
order to o$tain this information from the market ;lack9Scholes option valuation formula
is employed&
-aken the uotes for stock option for given period of time from the market *e
have all the necessary information reuired to calculate varia$ility& Such estimate reflects
the true value in case of the option market efficiency *hich *e assume to hold&
III* Calculatethecost o!do2nsideinsurance
:-his assumption is legitimi7ed $y reference to the research done in the field( *hich sho*s that the
current dividend is a good predictor of a company%s long9term dividend stream( due pro$a$ly to the factthat companies make a conscious effort not to surprise the markets *ith une6pected changes in their financial distri$ution policies& -his assumption seems to $e uite du$ious& It *ould $e natural to e6pect thatnot the dividend $ut div,profit ratio should $e constant and therefore the dividend *ould at least gro* *ith
inflation& Ho*ever( since the authors don%t document this part of the research( *e don%t have the means toverify their claim&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
35/53
!
0hen *e have the estimate of volatility for a given time period( *e com$ine it
*ith the calculated for*ard $reakeven price to determine the price investors *ould $e
prepared to pay in order to insure against the chances that their shares *ill fall $elo* the
for*ard $reakeven price& -his is the premium that reflects the e6tra risk of euity over
de$t& Ho*ever it is nothing else than the price of the put option \ the right to sell in
particular time the shares an investor holds \ for given stock& Such option protects the
investor from the possi$ility of a drop in stocks price under a given strike price&
-his calculation can $e done very simply $y( again( employment of ;lack9Scholes
Formula in this case only *ith the e6ception that the unkno*n varia$le is not varia$ility
2*hich *e have just calculated4( $ut rather the price of the option&
I5* )erive the annuali>ede?cesse@uityreturn
In the final stage the price of an option needs to $e e6pressed in terms of annual
premium& -his can $e achieved in a very straightfor*ard *ay& insurance? in order to secure minimal price of stock in
particular time in the future&
In order to transform this ratio into annuali7ed premium( *e employ the standard
annuity formula 2;realey and yers !"""( pp& #!4
Presentvalueo%annuity
+−
t r r r
C 4:2
::2!&!:4
*here rεis the opportunity cost of investing the money for the period of one year( tεis the
num$er of years investor *ill receive annuity payment and C is the coupon& In our case
*e plug the ratio as a PK( $ond rate as rεand time period as t & In this *ay *e calculate the
annual e6cess euity return&
8nce the last part of the risk is calculated it can $e simply added to the t*o
preceding risks and the overall cost of euity is achieved&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
36/53
!T
2.".. Criti7ue
Even though CP is one of the first models that attempts to derive information
a$out the asset pricing from the derivatives market( rather than from analysis of e6 post
stock performance( it is not invinci$le and posses some $ottlenecks&
It is o$vious that CP does not stand on such a strong theoretical $asis as
C3P( $ut rather is just a set of formulas put together in order to come to a desira$le
outcome& Its authors are focusing on three risks and are providing a reasona$le *ay of
pricing them( ho*ever( it is impossi$le to test *hether or not there are some not9so9
o$vious risks that the authors are unconsciously omitting and therefore not mentioning&
-he lack of testa$ility of such a model is crucial and the testimony of the authors
that CP provides more >reasona$le? and >realistic? outcomes than other models is
not forceful enough to make us thro* a*ay C3P( on the contrary& -his comes *ith a
great contrast to C3P( *hich has come during the last couple decades through serious
testing( as *e have seen in the previous su$9chapter&
8ther critiue falls on the actual calculation& Even though the $ond and
derivatives market *itnessed unprecedented $oom in the last decades it is still very
difficult to gather enough data for calculating CP& Even for large multi9nationalcompanies it is difficult to find data on $onds and options that *ill cover a large enough
time spectrum( *hich *ould then ena$le us to derive different rates according to the time
structure of the projects& For small companies and start9ups it is merely impossi$le&
-ake $onds first& 3uthors encourage the user of this formula( in case he or she is
not a$le to find $ond uotes on a given company( to use information from another
company in the same field or $etter *ith euivalent credit rating& If *e follo*ed their
advice I $elieve *e *ould $e committing $ias&
1ooking at the $ond market( *e see very clearly that the $ond rates for companies
*ith a same rating are not the same and thus such assumptions is some*hat du$ious&
Aifferences in rates of companies *ith the same credit rating are not a*fully large( $ut
they tend to rise *ith longer maturity( not to mention the fact that *e are currently
e6periencing very lo* rates *hich also might cause small spread& Ho*ever( if *e do not
follo* their advice *e are not a$le to complete the calculation at all&
It gets trickier *ith options& Even though CP is presented as a model that *ill
ena$le users to come up *ith time specific rates( looking at the data availa$le on the
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
37/53
!B
market *e see that it is only a partial truth& `uotes can $e found only for less than t*o
years ahead and therefore *e are not a$le to calculate rates for follo*ing periods&
-his is not the end of the pitfalls& 8ption market is used in the calculation to
derive e6pected volatility of the stock in a given period in the future& -his lays on the
assumption that options are priced $ased on the ;lack9Scholes Formula& ;ut if that *ould
hold( then *e *ould get the same volatility from all uotes for given time period
regardless of the fact that *e take into account put or call options& -his is sadly not the
case( and the varia$ility is( in this case( truly varia$le& Should *e take the most traded one
or rather the one that is closest to our for*ard $reak9even priceV 0e might argue that not
the most traded one( since it might $e due to the fact that investors see it as $adly pricedand therefore trade it& 3uthors use the latter case and do not e6plain *hy&
Even though CP is very appealing in its nature( one has to $ear these
$ottlenecks in mind& Until $etter theoretical frame*ork is found or proper testing proves
the usefulness of this model( its results should $e taken *ith high caution&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
38/53
+"
". Asset price estimations
-he follo*ing section *ill focus on estimating of asset prices $ased on the
empirical data o$tained from the market&:)
3s for the C3P the e6 post stock data *ill
$e analy7ed in order to estimate $eta of the stocks and su$seuently its asset price& For
PC spot uotes( $ond uotes and uotes on options *ill $e used to derive the asset
prices&
In this section four stocks *ill $e analy7ed in order to provide data on *hich *e
*ill try to comment the suita$ility of the t*o models for asset pricing& -hese stocks
include=
• 0al art Inc& \ the *orld%s $iggest retailer *ith more than !" $illion dollars in
sales in the past :! months
• e;ay Inc& \ recently esta$lished leader in the e9commerce sector kno*n for its
online auction site
• yriad Denetics Inc& 9 $iopharmaceutical company focused on the development
of novel therapeutic products and the development and marketing of predictive
medicine products
• 3merican Electric Po*er Company( Inc& 23EP4 9 registered pu$lic utility holding
company& It is one of the $iggest company in the 3merican utility sector
-hese stocks have $een chosen $ecause they represent four very different
industries as *ell as giving a possi$ility to compare the firms from >ne*? and >old?
economy& 3lso they serve as good e6amples of $ottlenecks connected *ith CP&
3.1. CAPM
".1.1. 8ata
For the estimation of $eta using Capital asset pricing model and more importantly
for the linear regression analysis it is very important to decide *hat data *ill $e used for
the computation&
:)Aata used in this section are availa$le on reuest at hajekfbm$o6&fsv&cuni&c7
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
39/53
+:
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
40/53
+!
Ho*ever U&S& -9$ills do not provide uotes for every month and therefore *e
have to use :9month commercial paper rate 2CP
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
41/53
++
Estimation of $eta is done using the ordinary least suare 281S4 method& Such
method provides the $est linear un$iased estimate of $eta given the fulfillment of the
81S assumptions& -he follo*ing assumptions must $e checked in order to use 81S
method and most importantly to get meaningful results= 2Dujarati !""+( pp& ))94
Ø Re&ression modelis linearinarameters
Ø *alues o% indeendentvariablesarenonrandom
Ø The residualsarenormallydistributed
Ø The e'ectedvalueo%residuals is equalto/ero
Ø The residualsareindeendent%romoneanother Ø omoskedasticity, i(e( equal variance o%residuum
Ø ero covariance bet#eenresiduumandindeendent variables
Ø Jumbero%observations is &reaterthannumbero%estimatedarameters
Ø *ariance o%indeendent variable is%initeandositive number
Ø Jone'istence o% seci%icvariance,orerrorin re&ression model
Ø Jone'istence o% multicolinearity amon&indeendent variables
".1..1. 5ormality
For the test of normality /arue9;era test:T
*as used& -his test pointed to the
normality pro$lem *ith 5DN as can $e seen in -a$le !& -his might $e happening due
to the limited num$er of o$servations&
Under the null hypothesis of a normal distri$ution( the /arue9;era statistic is
distri$uted as *ith ! degrees of freedom& -he reported Pro$a$ility is the pro$a$ility that a
/arue9;era statistic e6ceeds 2in a$solute value4 the o$served value under the null 9 asmall pro$a$ility value leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis of a normal
distri$ution&
:T/arue( C& &( ;era( 3& @&= 3 -est for Normality of 8$servations and
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
42/53
+#
Table5(:Bar&ue7erastatistic results
Co"%any
,ar@ue
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
43/53
+
".1..". 9omoscedasticity
-est of the assumption that the variance around the regression line is eual for all
values of the predictor varia$le i&e& homoscedasticity holds( *as carried out *ith 0hite%s
test&!"
Homoscedasticity *as detected in all samples and since 0hite%s test does not
assume normality these findings are valid for all four stocks&
Table2(:hite6sstatistic results
Co"%any hite3sstatistic P( Econometrica #T( :BT"( pp& T:9T:T&!:
-he star sign 24 $y the P9value in the ta$le indicates that the estimated coefficient is significant at : level( the dou$le star then on &
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
44/53
+)
statistically significant at level of significance& Kalues seem to support the simple
assumption that ne* and I- or $iotechnology companies *ith short sales records should
$e more risky than companies *ith more sta$le cash flo*& ;oth e;ay and yriad
Denetics are aggressive stocks since their $eta is higher than :& 3EP and 0al art are
defensive as the very opposite is true&
TableF(:N40 Results
Co"%anyAl%ha
esti"ate
Standard
Errort
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
45/53
+
;erndt notes that >over the last )" or so years in the United States the average
market risk premium has $een a$out T per year? 2;erndt :BB:( pp& +#4&!!
Since
market risk premium varies hugely in the last :" years as Chart ! uncovers( it is
appropriate to use ;erndt%s figure& 3s for the risk free asset( average from :9month
commercial paper rate for last :! months *ill $e used&!+
Chart5( : Market [email protected]>>3
Market Premium 3#-P
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
46/53
+T
Table8: Results
Co"%any E?%ected return
3merican Electric Po*er 7.18%
e;ay 11.55%
yriad Denetics 15.96%
0al art 6.19%
0ource:o#ncalculations basedondata
3.2. MCPM
".2.1. 8ata
CP is a for*ard looking model that gathers information from the $ond and
option market& -imeframe is given $y the availa$ility of data rather than $y selecting past
period that is evaluated& For the estimation of asset prices using CP the follo*ing
data need to $e used= company $onds( option uotes and risk free rate&
".2.1.1. 'onds
For the purposes of the estimation it is necessary to o$tain information on the cost
of de$t for given companies& 3s *as mentioned in previous chapter it happens very often
that such information is not availa$le and *e need to derive it from the $onds of same
grade& Such is also the case here( *here $ond rates are o$tained in this *ay for e;ay and
yriad Denetics& Conseuences of such selection might $e( as *as said $efore( severe
and our estimates might $e $iased& -his has to $e taken into account *hen judging the
results&
Aata are taken from the $ond market uotes availa$le on :) ay !""#&th !#
".2.1.2. :ptions
Even though CP is presented as a model that is a$le to predict asset prices for
different time periods( in reality it is limited $y the availa$ility of data& Since option
markets do not provide uotes for far future 2in our case availa$le dates are at furthest for
/anuary !"")4& Aue to the lack of data $eyond this point( calculations are made only for
!#Source= ***&$ondpage&com
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
47/53
+B
/anuary !"" and /anuary !"") *ith the e6ception of yriad Denetics& arket does not
provide uotes for yriad Denetics in the period $eyond Novem$er !""#( and therefore
rate only for this date is calculated and used&
Aata as such are taken from on9line uotes and are $ased on the uotes from :)th
ay !""#&!
".2.1.". 0isk free rate
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
48/53
#"
3.3. Comparison
Since *e have calculated the same outcomes \ e6pected returns \ using t*o
different models *e *ould naturally *ant to compare them& Unfortunately in the case of
C3P and CP is not straightfor*ard& 3uthors of CP put as an undisputa$le
advantage of their model the possi$ility to derive different rates according to the time
period of the investment( compared to a >fit9for9all? $eta( ho*ever this hinders our a$ility
to make a comparison&
C3P uses only the historical data to achieve a risk premium and changes slo*ly
over the time& CP derives different a risk premium according to the length of the
investment $oth of them come essentially to the same result \ asset price& -he fact that
*e do not have a chance to compare the models head9to9head does not make either one of
them less helpful& In my opinion $oth models should $e used and the managers% final
decision should $e $ased on the information that $oth models are giving& Since they $oth
have their uniue point of vie* and focus on slightly different aspects com$ining them
seems to $e reasona$le&
In our case the only thing *e might conclude from the comparison of the t*o
results *e have is the fact that CP gives higher e6pected rates and therefore higher
cost of capital vis99vis C3P& 8ther conclusions are unfortunately impossi$le&
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
49/53
#:
&. Conclusion
-he aim of this thesis has $een to map the introduction of C3P and to follo*
one line of the de$ate it started( as *ell as to introduce a challenging model $ased on
information from derivative markets& 0e have e6plained thoroughly $oth models and
pointed out the difficulties that may arise *hen interpreting the results as *ell as during
the calculations themselves& Employing $oth models *e have su$seuently derived asset
prices for four companies traded on the US market&
-he results of this thesis are ho*ever not as straight for*ard as *e *ould have
*ished them to $e( due to the fact that even though $oth models are meant to give ans*er to the same uestion( their results are not compara$le& 0e are missing a tool that *ould
ena$le us to decide *hich model is providing us *ith more valua$le and accurate
predictions of capital assets prices&
Final judgment has to $e given $y the practitioners around the *orld( *ho use not
only asset pricing models $ut also their shre*dness( intuition and e6perience& 0ithout
such insight *e are not a$le to ans*er this uestion( $ut that does not mean that *e
cannot take sides& In my o*n vie* C3P stands on firmer foundations and its
predictions a$out the risk return relation seem to $e valid in the long run&
3s for the CP( the current $oom of derivative markets around the glo$e
makes me $elieve that it *as *orth revealing its frame*ork& CP( despite the fact that
has a lot of $ottlenecks( as *as pointed out in one su$9chapter( provides us *ith a very
interesting alternative to the main stream asset pricing models& Further research in this
field should $e encouraged( *ith respect to the critiue that *as provided&
3midst the critiue of $oth models *e should ho*ever reali7e that even though
today *e have uite enough empirical evidence to comforta$ly reject most of the *orks
done during the last forty years( such rejection should not mislead us to discard the
portfolio theory as such& odern investment theory should $e perceived as the
indispensa$le $uilding $lock for every academician and practitioner to start off( $ut not to
$e engrossed( *ith&
3s Sharpe 2:BT#4 concludes( ehileεtheεrelativeεimortanceεo%εvariousε%actors
chan&esover time, asdo there%erences o%investors, #e need notcomletelyabandon a
valuable%rame#ork#ithin #hich #ecanaroach investmentdecisionmethodically(e
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
50/53
#!
have develoed a use%ul set o% tools and should certainly continue to develo them(
Mean#hile, #e can use the tools #e have, as lon& as #e use them intelli&ently,
cautiously,andhumbly(
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
51/53
#+
References
A"ihudD7*DChristensenDB*,*DendelsonDH*98-;:„-urtherEvidenceεontheRisk
ReturnRelationshi!(StandfordUniversity(D R** 98=8;: „TheεRelationshiεbet#eenεreturnεandεmarketεvalueεo%εcommon
stocks!(/ournalofFinancialEconomics B( pp& +\:T
BerndtD E* R* 988;: „TheεPracticeεo%εeconometrics:εclassicεandεcontemorary!(
3ddison90esley(
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
52/53
##
,ensenD*C*98F-;: „Theε-oundationsandεCurrent0tateo%CaitalMarketTheory“ (
in Studies in the -heory of Capital arkets ,εPraeger Pu$lishers
,ogannathanD R*D eierD I* 9-..-;: „"oε#eεneedεCAPMε%orεcaitalεbud&etin&S“ (
National ;ureau of Economic
-
8/19/2019 asset pricing models.doc
53/53
Internet resources=
***&$ondpage&com
***&economagic&com
***&moneycentral&msn&com
***&nyse&com