Explaining the Poor Performance of Consumption-based Asset Pricing Models

We show that the external habit-formation model economy of Campbell and Cochrane (1999) can explain why the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and its extensions are betterapproximate asset pricing models than is the standard onsumption-based model. The model economy produces time-varying expected eturns, tracked by the dividend–price ratio. Portfolio-based models capture some of this variation in state variables, which a state-independent function of consumption cannot capture. Therefore, though the consumption-based model and CAPM are both perfect conditional asset pricing models, the portfolio-based models are better approximate unconditional asset pricing models.     

Financial Flexibility,Bank Capital Flows,and Asset Prices

In our parsimonious general‐equilibrium model of banking and asset pricing, intermediaries have the expertise to monitor and reallocate capital. We study financial development, intraeconomy capital flows, the size of the banking sector, the value of intermediation, expected market returns, and the risk of bank crashes. Asset pricing implications include: a market's dividend yield is related to its financial flexibility, and capital flows should be important in explaining expected returns and the risk of bank crashes. Our predictions are broadly consistent with the aggregate behavior of U.S. capital markets since 1950.     

w-MPS risk aversion and the shadow CAPM: theory and empirical evidence

This paper presents the shadow capital asset pricing model (CAPM) of Ma [2011a. Advanced Asset Pricing Theory. London: Imperial College Press] as an intertemporal equilibrium asset pricing model, and tests it empirically. In contrast to the classical CAPM – a single-factor model based on a strong behavioral or distributional assumption – the shadow CAPM can be represented as a two-factor model, and only requires a modest behavioral assumption of weak form mean-preserving spread risk aversion. The empirical tests provide support in favor of the shadow CAPM over the classical CAPM, the consumption CAPM, or the Epstein and Zin [1991. “Substitution, Risk Aversion and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: An Empirical Analysis”. Journal of Political Economy 99, 263–286] model. Moreover, the shadow CAPM provides a consistent explanation for the cross-sectional variations of expected returns on the stocks and for the time-varying equity premium.     

Integrating Factor Models

This paper develops a comprehensive framework to address uncertainty about the correct factor model. Asset pricing inferences draw on a composite model that integrates over competing factor models weighted by posterior probabilities. Evidence shows that unconditional models record near-zero probabilities, while postearnings announcement drift, quality-minus-junk, and intermediary capital are potent factors in conditional asset pricing. Out-of-sample, the integrated model performs well, tilting away from subsequently underperforming factors. Model uncertainty makes equities appear considerably riskier, while model disagreement about expected returns spikes during crash episodes. Disagreement spans all return components involving mispricing, factor loadings, and risk premia.     

Using Expectations to Test Asset Pricing Models

Asset pricing models generate predictions relating assets' expected rates of return and their risk attributes. Most tests of these models have employed realized rates of return as a proxy for expected return. We use analysts' expected rates of return to examine the relation between these expectations and firm attributes. By assuming that analysts' expectations are unbiased estimates of market-wide expected rates of return, we can circumvent the use of realized rates of return and provide evidence on the predictions emanating from traditional asset pricing models. We find a positive, robust relation between expected return and market beta and a negative relation between expected return and firm size, consistent with the notion that these are risk factors. We do not find that high book-to-market firms are expected to earn higher returns than low book-to-market firms, inconsistent with the notion that book-to-market is a risk factor.     

Monotonicity in asset returns: New tests with applications to the term structure,the CAPM,and portfolio sorts

Many theories in finance imply monotonic patterns in expected returns and other financial variables. The liquidity preference hypothesis predicts higher expected returns for bonds with longer times to maturity; the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) implies higher expected returns for stocks with higher betas; and standard asset pricing models imply that the pricing kernel is declining in market returns. The full set of implications of monotonicity is generally not exploited in empirical work, however. This paper proposes new and simple ways to test for monotonicity in financial variables and compares the proposed tests with extant alternatives such as t-tests, Bonferroni bounds, and multivariate inequality tests through empirical applications and simulations.     

Explaining abnormal returns in stock markets: An alpha-neutral version of the CAPM

This paper develops a behavioural asset pricing model in which traders are not fully rational as is commonly assumed in the literature. The model derived is underpinned by the notion that agents’ preferences are affected by their degree of optimism or pessimism regarding future market states. It is characterized by a representation consistent with the Capital Asset Pricing Model, augmented by a behavioural bias that yields a simple and intuitive economic explanation of the abnormal returns typically left unexplained by benchmark models. The results we provide show how the factor introduced is able to absorb the “abnormal” returns that are not captured by the traditional CAPM, thereby reducing the pricing errors in the asset pricing model to statistical insignificance.     

Expected versus Ex Post Profitability in the Cross‐Section of Industry Returns

Asset pricing theory predicts a positive cross‐sectional relation between expected profitability and expected returns. However, empirical studies typically use lagged ex post profitability as a proxy for expected profitability. In this article, we use out‐of‐sample combination forecasts to estimate expected industry‐level operating profit, gross profit, operating cash flow, and net income. We then construct real‐time industry‐rotation strategies based on high and low expected profitability. For each measure except gross profit, these predicted‐profitability strategies earn significant alpha net of transaction costs and outperform strategies based on ex post profitability.     

An Actuarial Premium Pricing Model for Nonnormal Insurance and Financial Risks in Incomplete Markets

Abstract

A model for pricing insurance and financial risks, based on recent developments in actuarial premium principles with elliptical distributions, is developed for application to incomplete markets and heavy-tailed distributions. The pricing model involves an application of a generalized variance premium principle from insurance pricing to the pricing of a portfolio of nontraded risks relative to a portfolio of traded risks. This pricing model for a portfolio of insurance or financial risks reflects preferences for features of the distributions other than mean and variance, including kurtosis. The model reduces to the Capital Asset Pricing Model for multinormal portfolios and to a form of the CAPM in the case where the traded and nontraded risks have the same elliptical distribution.     

价值管理视角下的商业银行资产负债模型

以价值管理为核心的商业银行资产负债模型将资产负债管理相关要素纳入统一的分析框架内,实现了价值创造和风险控制的有机结合,促使银行资产负债管理行为与银行价值最大化的基本目标协同一致。基于价值管理的资产负债理论模型为中国银行业在内部资金转移定价、贷款定价及利率风险计量等资产负债管理核心领域的实践提供了有益的参考。推进中国银行业资产负债管理向价值管理转型还必须从银行内外部同时着手,在银行内部积极吸收借鉴国外成熟的理论模型,加快开发资产负债决策支持系统,同时,大力推进金融市场和金融基础设施建设。     

Systematic Risk and Empirical Research

We show here that risky asset returns generating processes stated in terms of factors which include both accounting and non-accounting based measures of risk (e.g. book to market ratios) imply, under fairly standard regularity conditions, that the Sharpe-Lintner-Black asset pricing model beta is a 'sufficient' statistic in the sense that it captures all important attributes of the returns generating process in a single number. We then derive the parametric relationship between betas based on inefficient index portfolios and betas based on the market or tangency portfolio. We demonstrate that the relationship between risky asset expected returns and betas computed on the basis of inefficient index portfolios is both consistent with the predictions of the Capital Asset Pricing Model and the multi-factor asset pricing models of Fama and French (1992, 1993, 1995 and 1996). The 'trick' is to realise that inefficient index portfolios are composed of the market portfolio and a collection of inefficient but self financing 'kernel' or 'arbitrage' portfolios. It then follows that there is a perfect linear cross sectional relationship between risky asset expected returns, betas based on inefficient index portfolios and the arbitrage portfolios. Hence, if we happen to stumble across variables that span the same subspace as the vectors representing the arbitrage portfolios, it is easy to create the illusion that risky asset expected returns depend on variables other than 'beta'.     

Hedging jump risk,expected returns and risk premia in jump-diffusion economies

This article presents a pure exchange economy that extends Rubinstein [Bell J. Econ. Manage. Sci., 1976, 7, 407–425] to show how the jump-diffusion option pricing model of Black and Scholes [J. Political Econ., 1973, 81, 637–654] and Merton [J. Financ. Econ., 1976, 4, 125–144] evolves in gamma jumping economies. From empirical analysis and theoretical study, both the aggregate consumption and the stock price are unknown in determining jumping times. By using the pricing kernel, we determine both the aggregate consumption jump time and the stock price jump time from the equilibrium interest rate and CCAPM (Consumption Capital Asset Pricing Model). Our general jump-diffusion option pricing model gives an explicit formula for how the jump process and the jump times alter the pricing. This innovation with predictable jump times enhances our analysis of the expected stock return in equilibrium and of hedging jump risks for jump-diffusion economies.     

An intertemporal asset pricing model with stochastic consumption and investment opportunities

This paper derives a single-beta asset pricing model in a multi-good, continuous-time model with uncertain consumption-goods prices and uncertain investment opportunities. When no riskless asset exists, a zero-beta pricing model is derived. Asset betas are measured relative to changes in the aggregate real consumption rate, rather than relative to the market. In a single-good model, an individual's asset portfolio results in an optimal consumption rate that has the maximum possible correlation with changes in aggregate consumption. If the capital markets are unconstrained Pareto-optimal, then changes in all individuals' optimal consumption rates are shown to be perfectly correlated.     

The performance of cross-sectional regression tests of the CAPM with non-zero pricing errors

We show that in the presence of non-zero pricing errors, the Fama–MacBeth (FM) cross-sectional regression test is very likely to either reject the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) when it (almost) holds or accept the model when it grossly fails. We investigate the case when pricing errors are correlated with betas and demonstrate that the test performance depends crucially on the correlation, cross-sectional distribution of betas, and several other parameter values. Even when the CAPM holds exactly (pricing errors are zero) the FM test is equally likely to either reject or accept the model when typical sample sizes are used.     

International capital market equilibrium with investment barriers

This paper outlines models of capital market equilibrium when there are explicit barriers to international investment in the form of a tax on holdings of assets in one country by residents of another country. There is a corresponding subsidy on short positions in foreign assets. Asset prices deviate from the predictions of the world capital asset pricing model. Investors do not hold a mixture of national market portfolios, but the mix of risky assets is the same for every investor in a country. Optimal portfolios tend to be heavy in domestic assets, and light in foreign assets. Tax free investors, however, tend to hold assets anywhere in the world that are taxed heavily. Estimates of the magnitude of the average tax (or the magnitude of effective barriers to international investment) can be made by comparing the average return on the minimum variance zero β portfolio, z, with the average across countries and time of the short-term interest rate. When barriers are ineffective, the expected return on portfolio z will be the average short-term interest rate, and the world capital asset pricing model will hold.     

Generalized Disappointment Aversion and Asset Prices

We characterize generalized disappointment aversion (GDA) risk preferences that can overweight lower‐tail outcomes relative to expected utility. We show in an endowment economy that recursive utility with GDA risk preferences generates effective risk aversion that is countercyclical. This feature comes from endogenous variation in the probability of disappointment in the representative agent's intertemporal consumption‐saving problem that underlies the asset pricing model. The variation in effective risk aversion produces a large equity premium and a risk‐free rate that is procyclical and has low volatility in an economy with a simple autoregressive endowment‐growth process.     

Segment Disclosure and Cost of Capital

We investigate whether segment disclosure influences cost of capital. Improved segment reporting is expected to decrease cost of capital by reducing estimation risk. However, in a competitive environment segment disclosure may also generate uncertainties about future prospects and lead to a larger cost of capital. Asset‐pricing tests confirm that segment disclosure is a priced risk factor. Also, segment disclosure reduces ex‐ante estimates of cost of equity capital and other measures connected to risk. These results suggest a negative relation between segment disclosure and cost of capital. Our results also show that competition reduces, but does not eliminate, the previous relationship.     

Financial contagion and asset pricing

Asset market interconnectedness can give rise to significant contagion risks during periods of financial crises that extend beyond the risks associated with changes in volatilities and correlations. These channels include the transmission of shocks operating through changes in the higher order comoments of asset returns, including changes in coskewness arising from changes in the interaction between volatility and average returns across asset markets. These additional contagion channels have nontrivial implications for the pricing of options through changes in the payoff probability structure and more generally, in the management of financial risks. The effects of incorrectly pricing risk has proved to be significant during many financial crises, including the subprime crisis from mid 2007 to mid 2008, the Great Recession beginning 2008 and the European debt crisis from 2010. Using an exchange options model, the effects of changes in the comoments of asset returns across asset markets are investigated with special emphasis given to understanding the effects on hedging risk during financial crises. The results reveal that by not correctly pricing the risks arising from higher order moments during financial crises, there is significant mispricing of options, while hedged portfolios during noncrisis periods become exposed to price movements in times of crises.     

A best choice among asset pricing models? The Conditional Capital Asset Pricing Model in Australia

We use Australian data to test the Conditional Capital Asset Pricing Model (Jagannathan and Wang, 1996). Our results are generally supportive: the model performs well compared with a number of competing asset pricing models. In contrast to the study by Jagannathan and Wang, however, we find that the inclusion of the market for human capital does not save the concept of the time‐independent market beta (it remains insignificant). We find support for the role of a small‐minus‐big factor in pricing the cross‐section of returns and find grounds to disagree with Jagannathan and Wang's argument that this factor proxies for misspecified market risk.     

A Benchmark Approach to Portfolio Optimization under Partial Information

This paper proposes a filtering methodology for portfolio optimization when some factors of the underlying model are only partially observed. The level of information is given by the observed quantities that are here supposed to be the primary securities and empirical log-price covariations. For a given level of information we determine the growth optimal portfolio, identify locally optimal portfolios that are located on a corresponding Markowitz efficient frontier and present an approach for expected utility maximization. We also present an expected utility indifference pricing approach under partial information for the pricing of nonreplicable contracts. This results in a real world pricing formula under partial information that turns out to be independent of the subjective utility of the investor and for which an equivalent risk neutral probability measure need not exist.