Extending the capital asset pricing model: the reward beta approach

This paper offers an alternative method for estimating expected returns. The proposed reward beta approach performs well empirically and is based on asset pricing theory. The empirical section compares this approach with the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and the Fama–French three‐factor model. In out‐of‐sample testing, both the CAPM and the three‐factor model are rejected. In contrast, the reward beta approach easily passes the same test. In robustness checks, the reward beta approach consistently outperforms both the CAPM and the three‐factor model.     

Evaluating asset pricing models in the Korean stock market

This paper evaluates and compares asset pricing models in the Korean stock market. The asset pricing models considered are the CAPM, APT-motivated models, the Consumption-based CAPM, Intertemporal CAPM-motivated models, and the Jagannathan and Wang conditional CAPM model. By using various test portfolios as well as individual stocks, we conduct time-series tests and cross-sectional regression tests based on individual t-tests, the joint F-tests, the Hansen and Jagannathan (1997) distance, and R-squares. Overall, the Fama and French (1993) five-factor model performs most satisfactorily among the asset pricing models considered in explaining the intertemporal and cross-sectional behavior of stock returns in Korea. The Fama and French (1993) three-factor model, the Chen et al. (2010) three-factor model, and the Campbell (1996) model are the next. The results indicate that the two bond portfolios, term spread and default spread, play an important role in explaining stock returns in Korea.     

Long‐Run Stockholder Consumption Risk and Asset Returns

We provide new evidence on the success of long‐run risks in asset pricing by focusing on the risks borne by stockholders. Exploiting microlevel household consumption data, we show that long‐run stockholder consumption risk better captures cross‐sectional variation in average asset returns than aggregate or nonstockholder consumption risk, and implies more plausible risk aversion estimates. We find that risk aversion around 10 can match observed risk premia for the wealthiest stockholders across sets of test assets that include the 25 Fama and French portfolios, the market portfolio, bond portfolios, and the entire cross‐section of stocks.     

Pricing innovations in consumption growth: A re-evaluation of the recursive utility model

We re-evaluate the cross-sectional asset pricing implications of the recursive utility function of  and , using innovations in future consumption growth in our tests. Our empirical specification helps explain the size, value and momentum effects. Specifically, we find that (?) the beta associated with news about consumption growth has a systematic pattern: beta decreases along the size dimension and increases along the book-to-market and momentum dimensions, (??) innovation in consumption growth is significantly priced in asset returns using both the Fama and MacBeth (1973) and the stochastic discount factor approaches, and (???) the model performs better than both the CAPM and Fama–French model.     

Multifactor models and their consistency with the ICAPM

Can any multifactor model be interpreted as a variant of the Intertemporal CAPM (ICAPM)? The ICAPM places restrictions on time-series and cross-sectional behavior of state variables and factors. If a state variable forecasts positive (negative) changes in investment opportunities in time-series regressions, its innovation should earn a positive (negative) risk price in the cross-sectional test of the respective multifactor model. Second, the market (covariance) price of risk must be economically plausible as an estimate of the coefficient of relative risk aversion (RRA). We apply our ICAPM criteria to eight popular multifactor models and the results show that most models do not satisfy the ICAPM restrictions. Specifically, the “hedging” risk prices have the wrong sign and the estimates of RRA are not economically plausible. Overall, the Fama and French (1993) and Carhart (1997) models perform the best in consistently meeting the ICAPM restrictions. The remaining models, which represent some of the most relevant examples presented in the empirical asset pricing literature, can still empirically explain the size, value, and momentum anomalies, but they are generally inconsistent with the ICAPM.     

Asset Pricing and the Illiquidity Premium

In this paper, we examine the asset‐pricing role of liquidity (as proxied by share turnover) in the context of the Fama and French (1993) three‐factor model. Our analysis employs monthly Australian data, covering the sample period from 1990 to 1998. The key finding of our research is that the main test is unable to reject the test of over‐identifying restrictions, thus supporting the overall favorability of the liquidity‐augmented Fama–French model. In addition, we find that the asset‐pricing performance of the liquidity factor is generally very robust to a wide range of sensitivity checks.     

Macroeconomic risk and the cross-section of stock returns

We develop a conditional version of the consumption capital asset pricing model (CCAPM) using the conditioning variable from the cointegrating relation among macroeconomic variables (dividend yield, term spread, default spread, and short-term interest rate). Our conditioning variable has a strong power to predict market excess returns in the presence of competing predictive variables. In addition, our conditional CCAPM performs approximately as well as Fama and French’s (1993) three-factor model in explaining the cross-section of the Fama and French 25 size and book-to-market sorted portfolios. Our specification shows that value stocks are riskier than growth stocks in bad times, supporting the risk-based story.     

Financial Sector Risk and the Stock Returns: Evidence from Tokyo Stock Exchange Firms

We investigate whether the activity of financial firms creates value and/or risk to the economy within the asset pricing framework. We use stock return data from nonfinancial firms listed in the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The value-weighted index that is solely composed of nonfinancial firms is augmented with the index of the firms from the financial sector, and we estimate multivariate asset pricing model with these two indices. We note that our procedure can simultaneously take into account the cross-holding phenomena among Japanese firms, especially between the financial sector and the nonfinancial sector. Our augmented index model performs well both with cross-sectional Fama and MacBeth regression test and GMM test. Our two index model with additional Fama and French's HML factor can capture cross-sectional variations of the returns of sample portfolios better than the original Fama and French model can, when measured by Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure. We find that this additional new sector variable can be a substitute for Fama and French's size factor, but not related to the bond index return. This variable has similar factor characteristic as money supply growth or the term structure, but the latter variables contain more information than the former. Morever, our financial sector model helps explain the return and risk structure of Japanese firms during the so-called bubble period.     

Idiosyncratic Consumption Risk and the Cross Section of Asset Returns

This paper investigates the importance of idiosyncratic consumption risk for the cross‐sectional variation in asset returns. We find that besides the rate of aggregate consumption growth, the cross‐sectional variance of consumption growth is also a priced factor. This suggests that consumers are not fully insured against idiosyncratic consumption risk, and that asset returns reflect their attempts to reduce their exposure to this risk. The resulting two‐factor consumption‐based asset pricing model significantly outperforms the CAPM, and its performance compares favorably with that of the Fama–French three‐factor model.     

An intertemporal capital asset pricing model with bank credit growth as a state variable

An ICAPM which includes bank credit growth as a state variable explains 94% of the cross-sectional variation in the average returns on the 25 Fama–French portfolios. We find compelling evidence that bank credit growth is priced in the cross-section of expected stock returns, even after controlling for well-documented asset pricing factors. These results are robust to the inclusion of industry portfolios in the set of test assets. They are also robust to the addition of firm characteristics and lagged instruments in the factor model. Bank credit growth is important because of its ability to predict business cycle variables as well as future labor income growth. These findings underscore the relevance of bank credit growth in stock pricing.     

Is consumption risk priced in the stock market?

The paper examines whether the risk in the consumption of stockholders caused by incomplete consumption insurance is priced in the cross-section of average stock returns. Using Taylor series expansion of the average marginal utility of consumption, we show that the risk in the consumption of stock market participants can be decomposed into two components, insurable (hedgeable using financial assets) and uninsurable (caused by incomplete consumption insurance) consumption risks. We argue that the growth rate of average consumption may be viewed as a proxy for the insurable component of consumption risk, while the growth rates of the rescaled higher-order cross-sectional consumption distribution moments may be regarded as a multivariate proxy for uninsurable risk in consumption. Exploiting microlevel household quarterly consumption data from the US Consumer Expenditure Survey, we find that both components of consumption risk are significantly priced when the limited stock market participation is taken into account. Neither the insurable and uninsurable components of consumption risk nor the Fama–French risk factors are rejected as capturing important components of systematic risk when tested against each other in an integrated multifactor asset pricing model.     

In America's thrall: the effects of the US market and US security characteristics on Australian stock returns

Can Australian equity returns be modelled by ‘home‐grown’ factors? We examine the indigenous capital asset pricing model, the indigenous Fama–French three‐factor model, and extensions to the latter, and find them all wanting. We find evidence of domestic market segmentation in Australia. For the smallest firms, all the models we study fail. For the largest Australian firms, we find that the US Fama–French three factors (downloaded from French's website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/ ) provide a successful model of Australian returns. It is as if the largest firms in the Australian market are simply part of the larger US market.     

Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?

In a capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework, Ferguson and Shockley [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] propose two factors constructed on relative leverage and relative distress, and show that the two factors subsume Fama and French's [1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] factors constructed on size and book-to-market (BM) in explaining the cross-sectional average returns of the 25 size-BM portfolios. Based on tests on individual securities, we find that all factors fail to fully explain the common asset-pricing anomalies. In the spirit of Merton's [1973. An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41, 867–887] intertemporal CAPM, we propose an augmented five-factor model, which incorporates Ferguson and Shockley's [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] factors into the Fama–French three-factor model. The empirical results show that a simple conditional version of the augmented model is able to explain most well-known asset-pricing anomalies.     

Macroeconomic risks and characteristic-based factor models

We show that book-to-market, size, and momentum capture cross-sectional variation in exposures to a broad set of macroeconomic factors identified in the prior literature as potentially important for pricing equities. The factors considered include innovations in economic growth expectations, inflation, the aggregate survival probability, the term structure of interest rates, and the exchange rate. Factor mimicking portfolios constructed on the basis of book-to-market, size, and momentum therefore, serve as proxy composite macroeconomic risk factors. Conditional and unconditional cross-sectional asset pricing tests indicate that most of the macroeconomic factors considered are priced. The performance of an asset pricing model based on the macroeconomic factors is comparable to the performance of the Fama and French (1993) model. However, the momentum factor is found to contain incremental information for asset pricing.     

Weighing asset pricing factors: a least squares model averaging approach

Empirical evidence has demonstrated that certain factors in asset pricing models are more important than others for explaining specific portfolio returns. We propose a technique that evaluates the factors included in popular linear asset pricing models. Our method has the advantage of simultaneously ranking the relative importance of those pricing factors through comparing their model weights. As an empirical verification, we apply our method to portfolios formed following Fama and French [A five-factor asset pricing model. J. Financ. Econ., 2015, 116, 1–22] and demonstrate that models accommodated to our factor rankings do improve their explanatory power in both in-sample and out-of-sample analyses.     

Cross‐sectional Tests of Conditional Asset Pricing Models: Evidence from the German Stock Market

We study the performance of conditional asset pricing models and multifactor models in explaining the German cross‐section of stock returns. We focus on several variables, which (according to previous research) are associated with market expectations on future market excess returns or business cycle conditions. Our results suggest that the empirical performance of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be improved when allowing for time‐varying parameters of the stochastic discount factor. A conditional CAPM using the term spread explains the returns on our size and book‐to‐market sorted portfolios about as well as the Fama‐French three‐factor model and performs best in terms of the Hansen‐Jagannathan distance. Structural break tests do not necessarily indicate parameter instability of conditional model specifications. Another major finding of the paper is that the Fama‐French model – despite its generally good cross‐sectional performance – is subject to model instability. Unconditional models, however, do a better job than conditional ones at capturing time‐series predictability of the test portfolio returns.     

Consumption growth predictability and asset prices

We derive and test a consumption-based intertemporal asset pricing model in which an asset earns a risk premium if it performs poorly when expected future consumption growth deteriorates. The predictability of consumption growth combined with the recursive preference delivers news about future consumption growth an additional risk factor, in addition to news about current consumption growth. We model the consumption growth dynamics using a vector autoregressive (VAR) structure with a set of instrumental variables commonly used for forecasting future economic growth. Our VAR estimation provides strong empirical support for future consumption growth predictability. The cross-sectional test shows that the model explains reasonably well the dispersion in average excess returns of 25 portfolios sorted on size and book-to-market, as well as 25 portfolios sorted on size and long-term return reversal. Growth stocks and long-term winners underperform value stocks and long-term losers, respectively, because growth stocks and long-term winners hedge adverse changes in the future consumption growth opportunities.     

It takes a model to beat a model: Volatility bounds

Models like the CAPM and Fama–French three-factor models are commonly used as benchmarks for calculating cost of capital and evaluating portfolio performance, despite the empirical evidence to reject them. For many practical purposes, “it takes a model to beat a model.” In this paper we derive restrictions on models that could “beat” a bench-mark model but might still be misspecified. In these “takes-a-model-to-beat-a-model” (TMBM) bounds, model A beats model B if model A's quadratic form of pricing errors is smaller. The bounds generalize the Hansen–Jagannathan bound and distance measure. We use the TMBM bounds to evaluate various linear factor models and consumption-based models. The failure of the power utility model is much less extreme when it is compared with the CAPM and Fama–French model. For reasonable utility curvature, the Ferson–Constantinides model and Epstein–Zin model perform best among the consumption-based models, beating the model of Campbell and Cochrane, in which model the value of the persistence parameter that matches the time-series properties of aggregate stock market returns seems too low for cross-sectional asset pricing.     

Size and book to market effects and the Fama French three factor asset pricing model: evidence from the Australian stockmarket

The present study adds to the sparse published Australian literature on the size effect, the book to market (BM) effect and the ability of the Fama French three factor model to account for these effects and to improve on the asset pricing ability of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). The present study extends the 1981–1991 period examined by Halliwell, Heaney and Sawicki (1999) a further 10 years to 2000 and addresses several limitations and findings of that research. In contrast to Halliwell, Heaney and Sawicki the current study finds the three factor model provides significantly improved explanatory power over the CAPM, and evidence that the BM factor plays a role in asset pricing.     

Creating Fama and French Factors with Style

This paper utilizes Frank Russell style portfolios to create useful proxies for the Fama and French (1992) factors. The proxy‐mimicking portfolios are shown to represent a pervasive source of exposure across U.S. industry portfolios and to generally possess similar properties to those utilized in the finance literature. Further, a set of multivariate asset‐pricing tests of the three‐factor Fama and French asset‐pricing (FF) model based on the proxy factors fails to reject the model. However, these tests do not reveal strong evidence of significantly positive risk premiums, particularly in the case of the size and book‐to‐market factors.