Multifactor Models Regarding Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model Icapm Assumptions On European And Us Market Data Advancing The Capital Asset Pricing Model Capm

Seminar paper from the year 2018 in the subject Economics - Finance, grade: 1.7, University of Duisburg-Essen (Faculty of Business and Economics), language: English, abstract: The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which is developed by Harry Markowitz, lacks on empirical validation and is not economically fully plausible. By only considering a single period within the CAPM, Merton tried to improve the model by implementing different intertemporal assumptions. This paper focuses on the analysis, if the lack of the CAPM can be improved by using the assumptions of the ICAPM and if the eight investigated models are in the sense of Merton's assumptions. The first chapter reviews a short explanation of the classical CAPM and his critics, followed by Merton's intertemporal CAPM and his assumptions in the next chapter. Additionally, there were models developed, trying to be economically plausible by considering the ICAPM main assumptions, which are presented in the second chapter. A different way to develop an empirical better fitting CAPM is by using empirical motivated state variables. Fama & French started to take this approach by developing the three-factor-model (FF3). A lot of researchers were influenced by the FF3 and made their own version of a multifactor model by implementing variables. Even Fama & French enhanced their three-factor-model by adding further variables. In the third section there is the forecasting power of the four ICAPM models and the four empirical motivated multifactor models on the US market data and on the European market data compared. Then follows an examination if these models can be determined in the sense of the ICAPM restrictions. The last chapter concludes the results.

A number of studies have presented evidence rejecting the validity of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). This evidence has spawned research into possible explanations. These explanations can be divided into two main categories - the risk based alternatives and the nonrisk based alternatives. The risk based category includes multifactor asset pricing models developed under the assumptions of investor rationality and perfect capital markets. The nonrisk based category includes biases introduced in the empirical methodology, the existence of market frictions, or explanations arising from the presence of irrational investors. The distinction between the two categories is important for asset pricing applications such as estimation of the cost of capital. This paper proposes to distinguish between the two categories using ex ante analysis. A framework is developed showing that ex ante one should expect that CAPM deviations due to missing risk factors will be very difficult to statistically detect. In contrast, deviations resulting from nonrisk based sources will be easy to detect. Examination of empirical results leads to the conclusion that the risk based alternatives is not the whole story for the CAPM deviations. The implication of this conclusion is that the adoption of empirically developed multifactor asset pricing models may be premature.

This book proposes a new capital asset pricing model dubbed the ZCAPM that outperforms other popular models in empirical tests using US stock returns. The ZCAPM is derived from Fischer Black’s well-known zero-beta CAPM, itself a more general form of the famous capital asset pricing model (CAPM) by 1990 Nobel Laureate William Sharpe and others. It is widely accepted that the CAPM has failed in its theoretical relation between market beta risk and average stock returns, as numerous studies have shown that it does not work in the real world with empirical stock return data. The upshot of the CAPM’s failure is that many new factors have been proposed by researchers. However, the number of factors proposed by authors has steadily increased into the hundreds over the past three decades. This new ZCAPM is a path-breaking asset pricing model that is shown to outperform popular models currently in practice in finance across different test assets and time periods. Since asset pricing is central to the field of finance, it can be broadly employed across many areas, including investment analysis, cost of equity analyses, valuation, corporate decision making, pension portfolio management, etc. The ZCAPM represents a revolution in finance that proves the CAPM as conceived by Sharpe and others is alive and well in a new form, and will certainly be of interest to academics, researchers, students, and professionals of finance, investing, and economics.

A number of studies have presented evidence rejecting the validity of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). This evidence has spawned research into possible explanations. These explanations can be divided into two main categories-- the risk-based alternatives and the nonrisk-based alternatives. The risk-based category includes multifactor asset pricing models developed under the assumptions of investor rationality and perfect capital markets. The nonrisk-based category includes biases introduced in the empirical methodology, the existence of market frictions, or explanations arising from the presence of irrational investors. The distinction between the two categories is important for asset pricing applications such as estimation of the cost of capital. This paper proposes to distinguish between the two categories using ex ante analysis. A framework is developed showing that ex ante one should expect that CAPM deviations due to missing risk factors will be very difficult to empirically detect. In contrast, deviations resulting from nonrisk-based sources will be easy to detect. Examination of empirical results leads to the conclusion that the risk-based alternatives is not the whole story for the CAPM deviations. The implication of this conclusion is that the adoption of empirically developed multifactor asset pricing models may be premature.

The problem addressed in this dissertation research was the inability of the single-factor capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to identify relevant risk factors that investors consider in forming their return expectations for investing in individual stocks. Identifying the appropriate risk factors is important for investment decision making and is pertinent to the formation of stocks' prices in the stock market. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine theoretical and empirical validity of the CAPM and to develop and test a multifactor model to address and resolve the empirical shortcomings of the single-factor CAPM. To verify the empirical validity of the standard CAPM and of the multifactor model, five hypotheses were developed and tested against historical monthly data for U.S. public companies. Testing the CAPM hypothesis revealed that the explanatory power of the overall stock market rate of return in explaining individual stock's expected rates of return is very weak, suggesting the existence of other risk factors. Testing of the other hypotheses verified that the implied volatility of the overall market as a systematic risk factor and the companies' size and financial leverage as nonsystematic risk factors are important in determining stock's expected returns and investors should consider these factors in their investment decisions. The findings of this research have important implications for social change. The outcome of this study can change the way individual and institutional investors as well as corporations make investment decisions and thus change the equilibrium prices in the stock market. These changes in turn could lead to significant changes in the resource allocation in the economy, in the economy's production capacity and production composition, and in the employment structure of the society.

Seminar paper from the year 2015 in the subject Business economics - Investment and Finance, grade: 1,00, University of Innsbruck (Department of Banking and Finance), course: Proseminar: Financial Management, language: English, abstract: The purpose of this paper is to do empirical research on the capital asset pricing model. The bases of our research are the returns of three stocks, the S&P 500 index which represents the market and the LIBOR as a proxy for the risk-free interest rate. The three companies that were chosen in this paper were Kellogg Company, KB Financial Group Inc. and Kate Spade & Company and all of them in combination represent our fictive market.

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the mean-variance (M-V) rule, which are based on classic expected utility theory, have been heavily criticized theoretically and empirically. The advent of behavioral economics, prospect theory and other psychology-minded approaches in finance challenges the rational investor model from which CAPM and M-V derive. Haim Levy argues that the tension between the classic financial models and behavioral economics approaches is more apparent than real. This book aims to relax the tension between the two paradigms. Specifically, Professor Levy shows that although behavioral economics contradicts aspects of expected utility theory, CAPM and M-V are intact in both expected utility theory and cumulative prospect theory frameworks. There is furthermore no evidence to reject CAPM empirically when ex-ante parameters are employed. Professionals may thus comfortably teach and use CAPM and behavioral economics or cumulative prospect theory as coexisting paradigms.

Research Paper (undergraduate) from the year 2008 in the subject Business economics - Banking, Stock Exchanges, Insurance, Accounting, grade: 1,3, University of Cooperative Education, language: English, abstract: The objective of this paper is to give an overview of the most important movements of the complex area of asset pricing. This will be tried by logically structuring and building up the topic from its origins, the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and then over its main points of critique, in order to arrive at the different options developed by financial science that try to resolve those problematic aspects. Due to the complexity of this subject and the limited scope of this paper, obviously it will not be possible to discuss each model or movement in depth. Coherently, the aim is to point out the main thoughts of each aspect discussed. For further information, especially concerning the deeper mathematical backgrounds and derivations of the models, the author would like to refer the reader to the books mentioned in this paper. Many of those works, finance journal publications and the literature on asset pricing in general, set their focus on different parts of this paper, which again underlines the complexity in terms of scientific scope and intellectual and mathematical intricacy of this topic.

Research Paper (undergraduate) from the year 2008 in the subject Business economics - Banking, Stock Exchanges, Insurance, Accounting, grade: 1,3, University of Cooperative Education, 31 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The objective of this paper is to give an overview of the most important movements of the complex area of asset pricing. This will be tried by logically structuring and building up the topic from its origins, the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and then over its main points of critique, in order to arrive at the different options developed by financial science that try to resolve those problematic aspects. Due to the complexity of this subject and the limited scope of this paper, obviously it will not be possible to discuss each model or movement in depth. Coherently, the aim is to point out the main thoughts of each aspect discussed. For further information, especially concerning the deeper mathematical backgrounds and derivations of the models, the author would like to refer the reader to the books mentioned in this paper. Many of those works, finance journal publications and the literature on asset pricing in general, set their focus on different parts of this paper, which again underlines the complexity in terms of scientific scope and intellectual and mathematical intricacy of this topic.

Studies consistently find that inflation is an important augmented factor for intertemporal capital asset pricing models (ICAPMs) when pricing the Fama-French 25 size and book-to-market portfolios. We extend this line of research by investigating two alternative ICAPM models (from Michel; Hahn and Lee) and the three-factor model from Hou et al. We find significant evidence that both ICAPMs and Hou et al.'s three-factor model perform better when augmented with inflation than the original models. The augmented models achieve a good model fit with the fewest factors, thus avoiding or alleviating the over-fitting problem.