Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis

International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp.141-178

ISSN: 2146-4138
www.econjournals.com
Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models:

A Structural Synthesis
Şaban Çelik
Deparment of International Trade and Finance, Yasar University,
Izmir, Turkey. Tel: +90-232-4115343;
Fax: +90-232-4115020. E-mail: saban.celik@yasar.edu.tr
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to give a comprehensive theoretical review devoted to
asset pricing models by emphasizing static and dynamic versions in the line with their empirical
investigations. A considerable amount of financial economics literature devoted to the concept of asset
pricing and their implications. The main task of asset pricing model can be seen as the way to evaluate
the present value of the pay offs or cash flows discounted for risk and time lags. The difficulty coming
from discounting process is that the relevant factors that affect the pay offs vary through the time
whereas the theoretical framework is still useful to incorporate the changing factors into an asset
pricing models. This paper fills the gap in literature by giving a comprehensive review of the models
and evaluating the historical stream of empirical investigations in the form of structural empirical
review.
Keywords: Financial economics; Asset pricing; Static CAPM; Dynamic CAPM; Structural empirical
review
JEL Classifications: G00; G12; G13
1. Introduction
In order to simplify the concept of asset pricing, it needs to give a snapshot of the literature
and a brief overview of perspectives in the field in addition with to describe what it is meant by an
asset. The assets, financial or nonfinancial, will be defined as generating risky future pay offs
distributed over time. Pricing of an asset can be seen as the present value of the pay offs or cash flows
discounted for risk and time lags. However, the difficulties coming from discounting process is to
determine the relevant factors that affect the pay offs. Navigating the market signals and inferring their
impacts on the pay offs are the main task of asset pricing and required to implement the strategic
implications. It is highly important in decision making process at the firm level and also at the macro
level. When we consider “asset” pricing we often have in mind stock prices. However, asset pricing in
general also applies to other financial assets, for instance, bonds and derivatives, to non-financial
assets such as gold, real estate. Models that are developed in the field of asset pricing shares the
positive versus normative tension present in the rest of economics. When we consider a model1 by
which we predict the future, we usually rely on the underlining assumptions behind it. If the
underlining assumptions are true after evaluation process of normative tests, their predictions should
be true which can be examined through positives tests. However, what we do is in fact not more than
putting everything in one simplified settings.
In most cases, the underlining assumptions of given model do not pass the normative tests.
Even if it is so, we can not hold the impacts of factors affecting the pay offs constant between the two
periods. On the other hand, there is another possibility that the way we describe the world should work
is not overly simplified but the world is wrong that some assets are mispriced and the models need
improvements. Cochrane (2005) states that this latter use of asset pricing theory accounts for much of
its popularity and practical application. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the prices of many assets
1
A model consists of a set of assumptions, mathematical development of the model through manipulations of
these assumptions and a set of predictions (Bodie et al., 2008:309).
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp.141-178 142
or claims to uncertain cash flows are not observed, such as potential public or private investment
projects, new financial securities, buyout prospects, and complex derivatives. We can apply the theory
to establish what the prices of these claims should be as well; the answers are important guides to
public and private decisions. Asset pricing theory all stems from one simple concept: price equals
expected discounted payoff. The rest is elaboration, special cases, and a closet full of tricks that make
the central equation useful for one or another application.
The distinctiveness of the study is that this is the first attempt to review literature written on
asset pricing models and the empirical investigation conducted in the form of structural empirical
review. In doing so, the historical perspective of the concept and the place it will take in future are
clarified and the way further researches conducted will be explored.
2. Theoretical Framework
In the scope of the paper, we will explain the models that are classified in the framework of
neoclassical finance2 and evaluate the empirical investigations conducting a structural empirical
review. In neoclassical finance, the models can be grouped into absolute and relative asset pricing
models. We mean by absolute pricing that each asset is priced by reference to its exposure to
fundamental sources of macroeconomic risk. The consumption-based and general equilibrium models
are the purest examples of this approach. The absolute approach is most common in academic settings,
in which we use asset pricing theory positively to give an economic explanation for why prices are
what they are, or in order to predict how prices might change if policy or economic structure changed.
In relative pricing, a less ambitious question is answered. We ask what we can learn about an asset’s
value given the prices of some other assets. We do not ask where the prices of the other assets came
from, and we use as little information about fundamental risk factors as possible. Black—Scholes
(1973) option pricing is the classic example of this approach and its extension Contingent Claim
Analysis (CCA) developed for crediting a country’s default risk. Notwithstanding, there is no solid
line between absolute and relative asset pricing models at least in application3. The problem is how
much relative and how much absolute model may explain asset pricing fundamentals.
Figure 1 outlines the theoretical development and the root of asset pricing in short. The main
distinction starts with the notion that how individual preferences over the distribution of uncertain
wealth are taken place. Financial economists have different views on this ground which can be
classified as neoclassical based4 and behavioral based5. The rational notion behind this paradigm shift
is coming from the way individuals make their decisions. Individuals, in a simplified manner, make
observations, process the data coming out from these observations and come to point in concluding the
results. As Shefrin (2005) pointed out that in finance, these judgments and decisions pertain to the
composition of individual portfolios, the range of securities offered in the market, the character of
earnings forecasts, and the manner in which securities are priced through time. In building a
framework for the study of financial markets, academics face a fundamental choice. They need to
choose a set of assumptions about the judgments, preferences, and decisions of participants in
2
The reason for this limitation is about giving as much intiutive background of central theories as possible while
being informed about the full literature written on asset pricing. We simply cannot explain every single models
developed in the field of asset pricing in a paper.
3
Cochrane (2005) explains that asset pricing problems are solved by judiciously choosing how much absolute
and how much relative pricing one will do, depending on the assets in question and the purpose of the
calculation. Almost no problems are solved by the pure extremes. For example, the CAPM and its successor
factor models are paradigms of the absolute approach. Yet in applications, they price assets ‘‘relative’’ to the
market or other risk factors, without answering what determines the market or factor risk premia and betas. The
latter are treated as free parameters. On the other end of the spectrum, even the most practical financial
engineering questions usually involve assumptions beyond pure lack of arbitrage, assumptions about equilibrium
‘‘market prices of risk.’’
4
Interested readers may consult Cochrane (2005) for the neoclassical based models whereas Contingent Claim
Analysis (CCA) is not extended to macro level in this book. For useful explanations about CCA applied in
macro level see Gray, et.al., (2007) for theoretical explanations and also Keller, et.al., (2007) for an application
made on Turkey.
5
Interested readers may consult Shefrin (2005) for the behavioral based models. In the scope of the present
paper we will not cover in depth analysis made on the bevarioral contourparts.
Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis 143
financial markets. In the neoclassical framework, financial decision-makers possess von Neumann–
Morgenstern preferences over uncertain wealth distributions, and use Bayesian techniques to make
appropriate statistical judgments from the data at their disposal.
Figure 1. Stems of Asset Pricing Perspectives
Asset Pricing
Neo-Classical Based Behavioral Based

Asset Pricing Asset Pricing
Preferences over uncertain wealth distributions
Von Neumann–Morgenstern Prospect theory

theory
Appropriate statistical judgments
Bayesian techniques Heuristics and biases
Behavioral asset pricing

Absolute Relative
Pricing Pricing
Examples
Examples
Overconfidence
CAPM OPT Overreaction

CCAPM CCA
optimism
On the other spectrum, behavioral finance is the study of how psychological phenomena
impact financial behavior. Behavioralizing asset pricing theory means tracing the implications of
behavioral assumptions for equilibrium prices. Psychologists working in the area of behavioral
decision making have produced much evidence that people do not behave as if they have von
Neumann–Morgenstern preferences, and do not form judgments in accordance with Bayesian
principles. Rather, they systematically behave in a manner different from both. Notably, behavioral
psychologists have advanced theories that address the causes and effects associated with these
systematic departures. The behavioral counterpart to von Neumann–Morgenstern theory is known as
prospect theory. The behavioral counterpart to Bayesian theory is known as “heuristics and biases.”
Evidences that are against Efficient Market Hypothesis developed by behavioral finance as follows:
High volume anomaly (Shiller, 1998); Equity Premium Puzzle (Mehra and Prescott, 1985); Volatility
(Shiller, 1998); and Predictability (Fama and French, 1988). One of the central themes of behavioral
finance is the psychological phenomenon people faced with (Shiller, 2003; Thaler, 2000; Kahneman
and Tversky, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). These are Overconfidence (Daniel, et.al., 1998;
Lord, et.al., 1979; Daniel and Titman, 1999; Barber and Odean, 1999); Barber and Odean, 2001);
Overreaction (DeBondt and Thaler, 1985, 1987; Optimism (Weinstein, 1980; Taylor and Brown,
1988; Statman, 2002); Availability Heuristic (Barberis and Thaler, 2003); Regret Aversion (Statman,
2002; Bar-Hillel and Neter, 1996; Shefrin and Statman, 1985; Shiller, 1998); Representative Heuristic
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1971; Tversky and Kahneman, 1973) ; Anchoring Heuristic (Tversky and
Kahneman, 1974); Ambiguity Aversion (Ellsberg, 1961; Barberis and Thaler, 2003; French and
Poterba, 1991; Baxter and Jermann, 1997; Benartzi, 2001); Impossibility of applying optimization in
practice (Camerer, 1997; Benartzi and Thaler, 2001); Misattribution (Johnson and Tversky, 1983;
Saunders, 1993); Social events (Shiller, 1998; Hong, et.al., 2004; Bikhcandani and Sharma, 2000;
MacGregor, 2002).
More importantly the source of factors that affect the risk premium may also play a role to
classify the models such as the models based on macro economic or firm specific factors depending
upon the underlying assumptions behind. However, there is a clear argument to classify the models on
theoretical ground that generalizing the findings from an empirical investigation is much reasonable
than doing that by data mining. Table 1 reports the main development of Capital Asset Pricing
Models which were explained in the scope of the paper. Starting from Markowitz mean-variance
algorithm, we will explain the models into two main categories as static and dynamic models.
Table 1. Theoretical Development of CAPM

Model Originator(s)
Markowitz Mean-Variance Algorithm Markowitz (1952;1959)
Sharpe-Lintner CAPM Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), Mossin (1966)

Black Zero-beta CAPM Black (1972)
The CAPM with Non-Marketable Human Capital Mayers (1972)
The CAPM with Multiple Consumption Goods Breeden (1979)
Static Models
International CAPM Solnik (1974a), Adler and Dumas (1983)

Arbitrage Pricing Theory Ross (1976)
The Fame-French Three Factor Model Fama and French (1993)
Hogan and Warren (1974) and Bawa and Lindenberg (1977) Harlow
Partial Variance Approach Model and Rao (1989)
The Three Moment CAPM Rubinstein (1973), Kraus and Litzenberger (1976)
6
The Four Moment CAPM Fang and Lai (1997), Dittmar (1999)
The Intertemporal CAPM Merton (1973)
Dynamic Models
The Consumption CAPM Breeden (1979)

Production Based CAPM Lucas (1978), Brock (1979)
Investment-Based CAPM Cochrane (1991)
Liquidity Based CAPM Acharya and Pedersen (2005)
Conditional CAPM Jagannathan and Wang (1996)
The main reasons behind the classification7 and formation of the model exhibited in Table 1
are historical development of the advances in asset pricing and theoretical extensions which are built
on Sharpe-Lintner CAPM. To divide the models into framework of static and dynamic structure is
useful on the theoretical ground to demonstrate how to generalize the model from discrete time
process to continuous. The models exhibited in Table 1 are just a model in one way or another to give
a simplified description of complex reality and are not free of incomplete justifications. Even tough a
model that is not an exact description of reality, it is still useful and in most cases better than a simple
average of sample return.
3. Research Methodology
This part is a complemented section to part 2 in which an extensive theoretical review made
on asset pricing models. The empirical research conducted on asset pricing literature is presented here
on systematic based selection criteria so called Structural Empirical Review (SER). In fact, SER is a
technique specifically designed and developed for the present paper to analyze research papers’
evidence and interpreting the results on more robust framework. At the first stage, we selected the
6
This is Dittmar working paper whereas article form is published in 2002.
7
Cochrane (2005) induced every asset pricing model into a consumption based asset pricing framework and
explained the dynamics of asset pricing model from different order.
most appropriate journals through ISI WEB of Knowledge database and sorted articles based on the
field such as economics, finance in addition with the total number of citations and impact factors of
the journals. In doing this, we reached 43 journals and around 2000 articles (see table 2 for details).
The first elimination criterion we employed is that an article should contain an empirical investigation
of asset pricing models. This elimination reduced the number of articles to 416. At this stage we
explore one of the main concerns for the field of asset pricing that how much attention is paid to asset
pricing models in literature. The question is partially answered by showing the numbers of inter-
citations among the 416 articles.
Graph 1 shows the total number of citations made by the articles to themselves on annual
basis. For example, there are more than 120 citations made by the articles to the other articles in the
pool in 1996. The most interesting conclusion coming out from the inter-citation statistics is that there
is a decreasing trend on asset pricing models. However, the results have two important constraints: (i)
these articles do contain at least an empirical investigation employed on asset pricing models. There
are many theoretical articles left not to be taken into account for this question. Even in this analysis we
exclude about 1600 articles; (ii) the results are limited to 43 highly cited journals. However, there are a
considerable amount of journals published in field of finance and economics.
Graph 1. Cross citations in reviewed articles
cross citations in reviewed articles
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1974
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
The second elimination criterion is that an article should primarily investigate an asset pricing
model and their assumptions or predictions. This elimination criterion reduced the number of articles
to 136 that are deserved to be reviewed for section six (structural empirical review of asset pricing
studies). The main purpose of the review process can be classified as follows: (i) To explore the
process of asset pricing literature; (ii) To examine the results of empirical examination made on static
and dynamic asset pricing models; (iii) To document the estimation techniques employed in the
articles and (iv) To document the main problems developed in the field and their empirical findings.
Table 2 depicts the first 25 finance journals sorted on total citation which also include the first
15 finance journals sorted on impact factor classified by ISI Web of Knowledge. This ensures the
quality of the journals. Table 3 shows the first 20 economics journals based on impact factor classified
by ISI Web of Knowledge. Two journals are classified in both searching process so that in total, 43
highly cited journals are reviewed.
Table 2. Reviewed Journals and the Relevant Statistics (2006): Sorted by impact factor and total citation
Serach for 'CAPM Search for 'Capital Asset
Sorted by total citation (2006) Search for 'CAPM' test' Pricing Models' (CAPM)
Data Full Full Full
Journal Name Interval Database Text Abstract Title Text Abstract Title Text Abstract Title
1 JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS 1979-2008 sciencedirect 36 2 34 0 176 1
2 JOURNAL OF FINANCE 1946-2004 Jstor 477 43 14 345 7 1 1049 9 0
3 REVIEW OF ACCOUNTING STUDIES 1996-2008 Springerlink 13 0 12 0 82 0
4 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS 1974-2008 sciencedirect 191 34 174 13 616 48
5 JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 1963-2002 Jstor 32 0 0 29 0 0 136 0 0
6 ACCOUNTING REVIEW 1926-2002 Jstor 37 2 0 28 1 0 173 1 0
7 REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STUDIES 1988-2004 Jstor 107 6 1 84 1 0 268 4 0
8 JOURNAL OF MONETARY ECONOMICS 1975-2008 sciencedirect 23 3 19 2 5 0
9 JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE 1994-2008 sciencedirect 11 0 9 0 69 0
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND
10 SOCIETY 1976-2008 sciencedirect 10 0 8 0 102 0
11 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1973-2007 Proquest 65 34 0 0 76 47
12 FINANCE AND STOCHASTICS 1997-2008 ebsco host 3 1 0 0 0 0
13 WORLD BANK ECONOMIC REVIEW 1998-2008 abi/inform 0 0 0 0 0 0
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND
14 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 1966-2003 Jstor 189 14 5 131 0 0 409 5 1
15 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION 1990-2008 sciencedirect 3 0 2 0 46 0
JOURNAL OF MONEY CREDIT AND
16 BANKING 1969-2004 Jstor 29 0 0 14 0 0 171 0 0
17 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS 1952-2002 Jstor 10 1 0 8 0 0 38 0 0
18 MATHEMATICAL FINANCE 1997-2008 ebsco host 16 3 0 0 16 3
AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE &
19 THEORY 1995-2008 Na 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL MARKETS 1998-2008 sciencedirect 14 1 12 0 33 0
21 QUANTITATIVE FINANCE 2001-2008 informaworld 9 3 7 0 20 0
22 JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY 1988-2008 ebsco host 5 0 0 0 9 0
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MONEY
23 AND FINANCE 1982-2008 sciencedirect 60 13 53 5 233 9
CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING
24 RESEARCH 1984-2007 ebsco host 30 5 0 0 29 0
25 JOURNAL OF BANKING & FINANCE 1977-2008 sciencedirect 183 26 160 7 769 29
Total 1553 191 20 1129 36 1 4525 156 1
Serach for 'CAPM Search for 'Capital Asset

Sorted by impact factor (2006) Search for 'CAPM' test' Pricing Models' (CAPM)
Date Full Full Full
Journal Name Interval Database Text Abstract Title Text Abstract Title Text Abstract Title
1 AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1911-2005 Jstor 56 1 0 37 0 0 248 0 0
2 ECONOMETRICA 1933-2005 Jstor 27 3 0 15 0 0 113 1 0
3 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 1892-2006 Jstor 27 4 0 23 0 0 143 0 0
4 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 1886-2002 Jstor 10 0 0 7 0 0 91 0 0
5 JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS 1974-2008 sciencedirect 191 34 174 13 616 48
6 JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS 1973-2008 sciencedirect 36 5 32 1 73 4
7 REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES 1933-2004 Jstor 15 4 1 9 1 0 90 1 0
8 REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 1919-2002 Jstor 35 5 0 32 1 0 92 1 0
9 ECONOMIC JOURNAL 1891-2002 Jstor 24 1 0 21 0 0 102 0 0
10 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC THEORY 1969-2002 sciencedirect 12 4 4 0 78 7
11 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES 1987-2005 Jstor 6 0 0 4 0 0 75 0 0
12 JOURNAL OF MONETARY ECONOMICS 1975-2008 sciencedirect 23 3 19 2 5 0
13 WORLD DEVELOPMENT 1973-2008 sciencedirect 3 0 1 0 263 1
14 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE 1969-2005 Jstor 11 0 0 9 0 0 87 0 0
15 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 1989-2008 sciencedirect 5 0 4 0 78 0
16 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS 1978-2008 sciencedirect 9 0 5 0 104 2
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL
17 ECONOMICS 1965-2008 ebsco host 19 6 1 0 25 8
18 EUROPEAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1969-2008 sciencedirect 32 2 19 0 157 6
19 RAND JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 1984-2005 Jstor 15 1 0 10 0 0 91 1 0
20 ECONOMICS LETTERS 1978-2008 sciencedirect 36 8 25 4 78 11
Total 592 81 1 451 22 0 2609 91 0
4. Theoretical Framework of Static Asset Pricing Models

This section gives short descriptions of static asset pricing models whereas the list is limited to
literature review made in the scope of the paper. Therefore any skipped resemble models within this
category is a reason of our structural literature review constraints.
Sharpe-Lintner CAPM
 COV R Xi , RMi 
E R X   r f   
 E R M   r f  ......................................................1
 VARR Mi  
COV R Xi , RMi 
Where;  X
VARRMi 
CAPM states that expected return ( E R X  ) of an asset is equal to risk free rate ( r f ) plus asset’s risk
 
premium (  X E RM   r f ). ( E R M  is the expected return of hypothetical market portfolio return
which consists of all assets.)
Black Zero-beta CAPM
 COV R Xi , R Mi 
E R X   E R Z    E R M   E RZ  .........................................2
 VARRMi  
Following Black (1972), the expression (2) is known as Zero Beta CAPM. Contrary to S-L CAPM, the
difference is that risk free rate is replaced by return of portfolio Z which is uncorrelated with market
portfolio. Portfolio Z technically can be called as companion8 portfolio for market portfolio since it is
uncorrelated. As Black explained that the model in expression (2) can explain why average estimates
of alpha values are positive for low beta securities and negative for high beta securities contrary to the
prediction of S-L CAPM.
The CAPM with Non-Marketable Human Capital
 P COVRXi , RMi   PH COVRXi , RMi 

ERX   rf   M  ERM   rf   ...........................3
 PMVARRMi   PH COVRMi , RHi  
Where:
PM : total value of all marketable assets
PH : total value of all nonmarketable assets
RH : one period rate of return on nonmarketable assets
Expression (3) indicates that nevertheless asset pricing is still independent of individual preferences.
Even tough unsystematic risk of the nonmarketable assets will affect individual preferences on
portfolio choices; it is only the systematic, economy-wide, component of non marketable asset returns
that matters. Asset pricing is still affected by covariance risk but it is now an asset’s covariance with
the market as well as its covariance with the systematic non-market asset return that matters.
8
This is a technical property of efficient frontier. See Merton (1972) and Roll (1977) for details.
The CAPM with Multiple Consumption Goods
  
ER X   r f   XM ERM   r f   XP E RP  r f  ......................................................4
Where:
VARRP COV RX , RM   COV RM , RP COV RX , RP 

 XM 
VARRP VARRM   COV RM , RP 
2
VARRP COV RX , RP   COV RM , RP COV RX , RM 

 XP 
VARRP VARRM   COV RM , RP 
2
The expression (4)9 depicts the expected return on asset X with market portfolio returns and portfolio
P which can be seen as a perfectly correlated portfolio with a composition of multiple consumption
goods.
International CAPM
 COV R X , RWM 
E R X   r fX  
VAR R 

 E RWM   r fW  ..................................................5
 WM 
Where
COV RX , RWM 

 X
VARRWM 
 X denotes the international systematic risk of security I, i.e. calculated in relation to the worldwide
market portfolio;
r fX denotes the rate of the risk-free asset in the country of security I;
r fW denotes the rate of the average worldwide risk-free asset; and
RWM denotes the return on the worldwide market portfolio.
All the rates of return are expressed in the currency of the asset I country.
Several authors have developed international versions of the CAPM. Among these, we could mention
Solnik’s model10 (1974a), which is called the International Asset Pricing Model (IAPM). This model
uses a risk-free rate from the country of asset I and an average worldwide risk-free rate, obtained by
making up a portfolio of risk-free assets from different countries in the world. The weightings used are
again the same as those used for the worldwide market portfolio.
Arbitrage Pricing Theory

Ross (1976) introduced The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (hereafter APT) showing how to approximate
equilibrium rate of returns using arbitrage portfolios in the framework of factor models. Factor
models of asset prices postulate that rates of return can be expressed as linear functions of a small
number of factors.
ER X   0  1  X 1 X  1, 2,...., n ...............................................................(6.1)
9
Derivation of expression (4) can be found in Balvers (2001). As Balvers underlined that such case is
overlooked in the literature whereas the dinamic version of the model can be found in Breeden (1979, section 7).
10
See equation 16 in Solnik (1974).
where the values of  0 and 1 are the same for every asset. Expression (6.1) holds as a strict equality
rf 0 .
only for an exact single-factor model. If risk free asset is present, its return, , equals
RX  rf
Alternatively if the factor model is constructed to explain excess returns, then  0  0 . When
0  r f
, the APT predicts:
E R X   r f  1  X 1 X  1,2,...., n ............................................................... (6.2)
The weight 1 is interpreted as the risk premium associated with the factor – that is, the risk premium
corresponds to the source of the systematic risk. In similar vein, if there are multifactor specification:
E R X   r f  1  X 1   2  X 2  ....   K  XK X  1,2,...., n ............................(6.3)
The Fame-French Three Factor Model
 
E R X   r f   X 1 E RM  r f   X 2 E SMB    X 3 E HML ...........................(7)
Where the model says that the expected return on a portfolio in excess of the risk-free rate [E(Ri) – Rf]
is explained by the sensitivity of its return to three factors: (i) the excess return on a broad market
portfolio (RM- Rf); (ii) the difference between the return on a portfolio of small stocks and the return
on a portfolio of large stocks (SMB, small minus big); and (iii) the difference between the return on a
portfolio of high-book-to-market stocks and the return on a portfolio of low-book-to-market stocks
(HML, high minus low). Fama and French (1992; 1993; 1996) assume that the financial markets are
indeed efficient but the market factor does not explain all the risks on its own. They concluded that a
three factor model does describe the assets return whereas they specify that the selection of the factors
is not unique. In addition to the factors that are contained in three factors model they postulate
additional factors that also have explanatory power.
Partial Variance Approach Model
CLPM r f RM , R X 
ER X   r f 
LPM r f  RM 
ER   r 
M f .................................................(8.1)
Where
E R X  is the equilibrium expected rate of return on asset i;
E R M  is the equilibrium expected rate of return on the market portfolio;
LPM r f R M  is the lower partial moment of returns below risk free rate on the market portfolio;
CLPM r f R M , R X  is the co-lower partial moment below risk free rate on the market portfolio with
returns on security X.
 rf
f RM , R X     RM  r f R X  r f  df  R X , RM 
  
f R M , R X  is joint probability density function of returns on asset X and on the market portfolio.
Hogan and Warren (1974) and Bawa and Lindenberg (1977) independently developed a mean-lower
partial moment capital asset pricing model (EL-CAPM). In deriving expression (8.1), the target rate in
all cases was set equal to the risk free rate. Systematic risk indicator beta is measured by CLPM/LPM
on the contrary to COV/VAR in S-L CAPM. The authors suggest that the replacement of this change
should be employed when there are distinct and significant differences between the two
measurements. Harlow and Rao (1989) generalize Hogan and Warren (1974) and Bawa and
Lindenberg (1977) and attempt for nth order lower partial moment and show in general that in this
scenario a one-beta CAPM obtains as follows:
 
 
ER X   r f   XMLPM n E RM   r f ..................................................................(8.2)
Where
 
    RM  r f  R X df R X , RM 
n 1
 
 XMLPM n   

   RM 
n 1
r f  RM df RM 

The Three Moments CAPM
R Xi  r f  c0i  c1i RMi  r f   c 2i RM  R M  

2
  i .............................................(9)
where the error term,  i , is assumed to be homoscedastic, independent of the excess rate of return on
the market portfolio, R M  r f , independent of the squared deviation of the excess rate of return on the
market portfolio from its expected value, ( R M  R M ) 2 , and to have an expected value of zero. Taking
expected values in (9) and subtracting, to express the quadratic market model in deviation form, then
multiplying both sides by R M  R M , taking expected values and dividing through by  R2 M yields an
expression for the beta of the ith risk asset:
( R M  R M ) 3 . Similarly, multiplying both sides of the deviation form of the quadratic
  c  c
X 1i 2i 2
 RM
market model by ( R M  R M ) 2 , taking expected values and dividing through by ( R M  R M ) 3 , yields en

expression for the gamma of the ith risk asset:
 X  c 1i  c 2 i 
M 
 K 4   2 2 
RM
where
  
K M4  E R M  R M
4
 
3 
 R M  R M   
The forth central moment of the rate of return on market portfolio
By restricting investor preferences, Rubinstein [1973a] and Kraus and Litzenberger 11 [1976] extended
the traditional Sharpe-Lintner mean-variance capital asset pricing model to incorporate the effects of
skewness on equilibrium expected rates of return.
The Four Moments CAPM

 
E R X   r f  1COV R M , R X    2 COV RM2 , R X   3COV R M3 , R .................(10)  
 
Where R M2 R M3 is the square (cube) of the standardized market portfolio return R M ;  1,  2 ,  3 are the
market prices of systematic variance, systematic skewness and systematic kurtosis respectively.
Expression (10) is the four moments CAPM which shows that in the presence of kurtosis, the expected
excess rate of return is related not only to the systematic variance and systematic skewness but also to
the systematic kurtosis. The higher the systematic variance and systematic kurtosis, the higher the
expected return. The higher the systematic kurtosis, the lower the expected return. Fang and Lai
(1997) incorporated the effect of kurtosis into the asset pricing model. A four moment CAPM is
derived in which systematic kurtosis in addition to systematic variance and systematic skewness,
contributes to the risk premium of an asset.
11
See equation 6 in Kraus and Litzenberger (1976).
5. Theoretical Framework of Dynamics Asset Pricing Models

The Intertemporal CAPM
E R X   r f  1 X E R M   r f    2 X E R NF   r  .......... .......... .......... .......... ......(11)
where
 X , M   X , NF  NF ,M  X , NF   X ,M  NF ,M
1X  AND 2 X 
1   NF , M  1   NF ,M 
2 2
COV R X , RY  COV RNF , RM 

 X ,Y  AND  NF , M 
VARRY  VARRNF  VARRM 
E R NF  denotes the expected rate of return of a portfolio that has perfect negative correlation with
the risk-free asset r f . All the rates of return are used in this model are continuous rates. If the risk-
free rate is not stochastic, or if it is not correlated with the market risk, then the third fund disappears,
 X , NF   NF , M  0 .. We then come back to the standard formulation of the CAPM, except that
the rates of return are instantaneous and the distribution of returns is lognormal instead of being
normal.
The Consumption CAPM
E R X   r f   X ,C E RC   r f  .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...(12)

Where
ERC  is return obtained by creating a mimicking portfolio with stochastic return
COV R X , RC 
 X ,C 
VARRC 
Breeden (1979) derives a single beta asset pricing model in multi-good, continuous-time model with
uncertain consumption goods prices and uncertain investment opportunities. In Consumption CAPM12,
the equity premium is proportional to a single beta, which is the covariance with consumption (usually
replaced with consumption growth per capita in empirical tests) rather than to the market portfolio.
Production Based CAPM

   
E RtX1  rt f   Xy ( E Rty1  rt f ) .................................................(13)
where
 iy  Covt (rt y1 , rti1 ) / Vart (rt y1 )
Here rt y1 may represent either the return on an asset perfectly correlated with aggregate production or
the growth rate of aggregate production itself13. Lucas (1978) examined the stochastic behavior of
equilibrium asset prices in a one-good, pure exchange economy with identical consumers. The single
good in this economy is (costlessly) produced in a number of different productive units; an asset is a
claim to all or part of the output of one of these units. Productivity in each unit fluctuates
stochastically through time, so that equilibrium asset prices will fluctuate as well. Lucas’s objective
12
See equation 21 in Bredeen (1979).
13
Balvers (2001) derives the expression (13) based on the equation 6 in Lucas (1978).
was to understand the relationship between these exogenously determined productivity changes and
market determined movements in asset prices and usually used to explain the equity premium puzzle14
Investment-Based CAPM
 g t  1 
 
R I s t 1   f k t  1  k  g I t  ..................................................................(14)
g I t  1 

Where
t t 1
R I is the investment return from state s to state s
f (.) is production function
g (.) is function for adjustment costs to investment
t
The notation (t) means ‘evaluated with respect to the appropriate arguments at time t in state s ’ and
subscript denote partial derivatives. Cochrane derived the expected return and investment relationship
in a non standard asset pricing equation with functional form. Cochrane (1991) obtained equation 15
(14) in the specific context of a complete markets economy. It can be interpreted as the physical
investment return of a firm. It is obtained from a within-firm type of arbitrage: invest in the current
period and then withdraw enough investment in the next period to keep the capital stock for future
periods equal to what it would have been without the current period investment; the net payoff per unit
extra investment in the current period is the investment return.
Liquidity Based CAPM

   
E RtX  rt f  E ctX   1 X   2 X   3 X   4 X ....................................(15)
Where
 1X 

COV RtX , RtM  Et 1 RtM  
VAR 
RtM E t 1 RtM  
    ctM  Et 1 ctM
 2X


COV ctX  Et 1 ctX  
  , ctM  E t 1 ctM

VAR RtM  Et 1 RtM  
    ctM  Et 1 ctM
COV R , c  E c 
X M M
 3X  t t t 1 t
VARR  E R   c  E c 
t
M
t 1 t
M M
t t 1
M
t
COV c  E c , R  E R 
X X M M
 4X  t t 1 t t t 1 t
VARR  E R   c  E c 
t
M
t 1 t
M
t
M
t 1 t
M

  E t   E RtM  ctM  r f 
Acharya and Pedersen (2005) present a simple theoretical model that helps to explain how asset prices
are affected by liquidity risk and commonality in liquidity. The model provides a unified theoretical
framework that can explain the empirical findings by pricing market liquidity, average liquidity, and
liquidity that co-moves with returns and predicting future returns. In the liquidity based CAPM16, the
expected return of a security is increasing in its expected illiquidity and its ‘‘net beta,’’ which is
i
proportional to the covariance of its return, r ; net of its exogenous illiquidity costs, c i , with the
14
Mehra and Prescott use the Lucas Model to explain the theoretical discussion behind the puzzle. (cited in
Constantinides, et.al., (2003, chapter 14))
15
See equation 12 in Cochrane (1991) in addition with some specific functional form given for operational
purposes in emprical tests.
16
See equation 8 for the conditional version of expression (5) and equation 12 for unconditional version, the one
explained here, in Acharya and Pedersen (2005).
market portfolio’s net return r M  c M . The net beta can be decomposed into the standard market beta
and three betas representing different forms of liquidity risk. These liquidity risks are associated with:
 
(i) commonality in liquidity with the market liquidity, COV c i , c M ; (ii) return sensitivity to market
 
liquidity, COV r i , c M ; and, (iii) liquidity sensitivity to market returns, COV c i , r M .  
Conditional CAPM
E R Xt  t 1    0t 1  1t 1  Xt 1 .........................................................................(16.1)
where
 Xt 1 is the conditional beta of asset i and in each period t,
COV R Xt , R Mt  t 1 
 Xt 1 
VARR Mt  t 1 
0t 1 is the conditional expected return on a ‘zero-beta’ portfolio,

1t 1 is the conditional market risk premium.
The subscript t indicates the relevant time period. R Xt denotes the gross return on asset X in period t
and in similar manner, R Mt is the gross return on the aggregate wealth portfolio of all assets in the
economy in period t. Explaining cross sectional variations in the unconditional expected return on
different asset, take the unconditional expectation of both sides of expression (16.1):
E R Xt   0  1  X  COV 1t 1 ,  Xt 1  ...........................................................(16.2)
where
0  E0t 1  , 1  E1t 1  and  X  E  Xt 1 
Here, 1 -lamdal is the expected market risk premium, and  X is the expected beta. If the covariance
between the conditional beta of asset X and the conditional market risk premium is zero (or a linear
function of the expected beta) for every arbitrarily chosen asset X, then expression (16.1) resembles
the static CAPM, i.e., the expected return is a linear function of the expected beta. One of the
assumptions of S-L CAPM is that the behavior of investors is estimated for one period. This is why it
is necessary to make certain assumption that the betas of assets remain constant through the time in
empirical examination of the CAPM. Jagannathan and Wang (1996) propose this model that includes
this assumption for the reason that the relative risk of a firm's cash flow is likely to vary over the
business cycle.
6. Structural Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Studies

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion
period] Techniques
1 Solnik (1974b) Can a single world index model give a US and European CAPM and OLS An international market structure of price behavior appears to
realistic description of the international data— [1966 – IAPM exist.
structure of asset prices? 1971]
2 Lessard (1974) What is the impact of the existence national 16 National CAPM and OLS Only a small proportion of the variance of national portfolios is
factors in returns generating process? Market Indices and IAPM common in an international context which gives rise to
30 International considerable risk reduction through international dimension.
Market Indices —
[1959 – 1973]
3 Pogue and How market model performs on European US and 7 CAPM OLS The whole evidence does not show substantial differences
Solnik (1974) common stocks returns? European countries between the United States and the four major European
— [1966 – 1971] markets. Some cases can be made for the three smaller markets
being less efficient.
4 Pettit and Can CAPM explain the structure of US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS The conditional predictions of the CAPM provide
Westerfield conditional predicted portfolio returns? – 1968] nonstationary, biased estimates of actual returns. The single-
(1974) factor market model does not properly adjust for market-wide
effects in assessing security performance.
5 Solnik (1977) Is it very unlikely that an empirical mean- US and 7 IAPM OLS As soon as the MV framework is used on ex post data, the
variance analysis will ever be able to European countries separation property will hold internationally even if all the data
discriminate between the various views of — [1966 – 1974] come from tables of random numbers and no one holds foreign
the world? stocks.
6 Finnerty (1976) Do the insiders earn more than the market US Data — [1969– CAPM OLS Insiders can outperform the market in their stock selections.
on average? 1972]
7 Griffin (1976) Are there any differences in the association US Data — [1953 CAPM OLS The behaviour of the cumulative average residual-per-share,
between each informational variable and – 1973] dividends-per-share and forecasts of earnings-per-share on the
security returns? assessment of expected return is significant.
8 Arbel, et.al., What is the relationship between default US Data — [1965 CAPM OLS Results support the usefulness of the capital asset pricing model
(1977) risk and return on equity? – 1973] and suggest that the magnitude of the cost of default when
combined with the probability of occurrence is insignificant as
an independent variable in generating stock returns.
9 Lee (1977) How possible factors affecting the second- US Data — [1965 CAPM MLE The functional form, the skewness effect, and the change of
pass regression results in capital asset – 1972] market condition are the most important factors in affecting the
pricing? empirical conclusions in testing the bias of composite
performance measure and the risk-return relation.
10 Levhari and How deviation from the "true" horizon US Data — [1948 CAPM OLS The investment horizon for which data are collected plays a
Levy (1977) causes a systematic bias in the regression – 1968] crucial role and has a great impact on both the regression
coefficient? coefficients and the performance indices.

period] Techniques
11 Brenner and Are betas stationary? US Data — [1963 CAPM OLS The slight difference between models (employed) that does exist
Smidth (1977) – 1968] tends to favor the hypothesis of constant beta coefficients.
12 Lloyd and Is Stone’s Two-Index Model of returns US Data — [1969 Stone’s OLS The results are mixed, but generally favor the model.
Shick (1977) valid to explain cross-sectional excess – 1972] Two- Index
returns? Model
13 Goldberg and Is CAPM predictive power of practical use US Data — [1936 CAPM OLS (Bivariate Portfolio returns were independent of time. SIM (Single Index
Vora (1977) in evaluating the returns to equity of public – 1972] spectral Model) worked well in explaining the returns on the control
utility? analysis) securities for all regulated firms, electric, and combination gas
and electric portfolios, but did not explain the returns on any of
the regulated firm portfolios themselves.
14 Friend, et.al, Can direct test decrease the gab between US Data — [1974 CAPM OLS Findings are inconsistent with Sharpe-Lintner theory if it is
(1978) theory and evidence? – 1977] appropriate to use for empirical testing the one factor return-
generating function relating actual to expected return.
15 Goldberg and How CAPM performs if spectral analysis is US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS and the market "index" does not perfectly explain individual portfolio
Vora (1978) used in testing procedures? – 1972] spectral analysis movements for all portfolios and that despite cyclical betas that
are fairly stable over time, the true value of beta appears to be
different for cycles of differing durations.
16 Grauer (1978) How to measure ‘aggregate’ or ‘composite’ US Data — [1934 CAPM OLS There was a slight indication that the more risk averse models
individual’s utility function based on the – 1971] (utility better described security pricing.
observed market behavior of investors. based)
17 Bachrach and Is the economic rationale for the existence US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS Low price stocks are riskier than high price stocks. In the long
Galai (1979) of specific characteristics for groups of – 1968] run, the compensation is the same, on the average, for the two
securities in "low" and "high" price ranges? mutually exclusive price groups. Only part of the relatively high
average rate of return on the low price stocks can be explained
by their relatively high systematic risk.
18 Fowler, How residual behavior exists? US Data — [1965 CAPM OLS It is found that there is evidence of heteroscedasticity and low R2
et.al., (1979) – 1976] and a noticeable dependence of these with frequency of trading
in the underlying stock.
19 Baesel and Do insiders earn more than uninformed US Data — [1968 CAPM OLS. . Both ordinary insiders and bank directors earned positive
Stein (1979) investors? – 1972] premium returns relative to an uninformed trading strategy.
20 Brown, Are the market imperfection US Data — [1955 CAPM OLS There is an association between the level of autocorrelation and
(1979) (autocorrelation) associated with – 1973] the level of beta. The CAPM is the least misspecified in those
misspecification of the CAPM? subsamples where autocorrelation is essentially neutral.
21 Schallheim and Is Fama-Macbeth procedure efficient than US Data — [1935 CAPM and OLS and The simple Fama-MacBeth (averaging procedure) appears to be
Demagistris Random Coefficient Regression? – 1974] Zero beta Random sufficient. However the evidence exhibited by the percentage
(1980) CAPM coefficient differences suggests that the RCR procedure does make a
regression difference especially over the long periods.

period] Techniques
22 Scott and Are betas stable? US Data — [1967 CAPM OLS and Results demonstrate that changes in estimated betas are
Brown (1980) – 1971] modified OLS significantly associated with changes in the product of the
estimates of autocorrelations for residuals and the estimates for
intertemporal market-residual covariances.
23 Levy (1980) How CAPM performs with the data taken Israel Data— CAPM OLS The CAPM explains about 40 percent of the variability of the
from Israel market? [1965 – 1980] average rates of return; the coefficients of the regression are not
far from the observed variables.
24 Friend and How CAPM and Three Moment CAPM US Data — [1968 CAPM, OLS The Kraus-Litzenberger attempt to develop and substantiate a
Westerfield perform? – 1973] Three modified form of the Sharpe-Lintner CAPM is not successful.
(1980) Moment
CAPM
25 Cheng and How CAPM perform under the different US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS and (Orcutt There are predominantly statistically significant trends in the
Grauer (1980) tests? – 1977] regression) estimated values of the intercept as regressors are added. There
is a statistically significant increase in the adjusted coefficient of
determination as the number of regressors increases.
26 Barry (1980) How CAPM performs on the farm real US Data — [1950 CAPM OLS and For the period, returns data, and market index, investments in
estate firms? – 1977] cochrane-Orcutt farm real estate by well-diversified investors appeared to
regression outperform the market and most individual assets too.
27 Roll and Ross How APT performs? US Data — [1962 APT Factor analysis The empirical data support the APT against both an unspecified
(1980) – 1972] and OLS alternative-a very weak test-and the specific alternative that own
variance has an independent explanatory effect on excess
returns.
28 Merton (1980) How the three models developed in the US Data — [1926 Three OLS First, it has been shown that in estimating models of the expected
paper estimate the expected return on the – 1978] Empirical return on the market, the non-negativity restriction on the
market? (unspecifie expected excess return should be explicitly included as part of the
d) models specification. Second, estimators which use realized return time
series should be adjusted for heteroscedasticity.
29 Miller and How to dealing with risk-return relationship US Data [1973 – CAPM OLS Results indicate the existence of a good deal of nonstationarity in
Gressis (1980) in the presence of nonstationarity? 1974] the risk-return relationships. When there are changes in beta,
investors are interested in whether such changes have beneficial
or perverse effects on a shareholder's wealth.
30 Collins And How common stock performance of firms US Data[1976 – CAPM OLS The FASB's proposal had a measurable negative effect on the
Rozef (1981) are affected in the fight of modified investor 1977] (CAR) equity values of affected firms. The set of variables which was
theory, contracting cost theory and hypothesized to measure the increased contracting costs and/or
estimation risk theory? estimation risk associated with the FASB's proposed elimination
of FC accounting was found to explain a significant proportion
of the cross-sectional variation in abnormal return performance
of our sample firms in the two weeks centered on the Exposure
Draft issuance.

period] Techniques
31 Oldfield and How the factors that affect treasury bill US Data — [1964 APT Factor analysis, Treasury bill returns provide a source for identifying statistical
Rogalski influence the common stocks? – 1979] OLS factors that influence common stock returns.
(1981)
32 Brewer (1981) Is there any difference in the SMLs for US Data — [1963 CAPM OLS There seems to be no statistical difference in the risk-adjusted
MNCs and NATLs? – 1975] performance of MNC and NATL common stocks. MNCs provide
no discernable advantage over nationals with respect to an
investor's quest for the risk/return benefits of international
portfolio diversification
33 Fogler, et.al., If there are multiple factors what might they US Data — [1959 Multi OLS The returns from stock groups such as Farrell's stables-cyclical-
(1981) be? – 1977] factor and-growth were shown to relate to returns in the Government
model bond market and to corporate bonds with default risk
34 Reinganum Are variations in estimated betas US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS+ Scholes The evidence indicates that NYSE-AMEX stock portfolios with
(1981) systematically related to variations in – 1979] Williams and widely different estimated betas possess statistically
average returns? Dimson indistinguishable average returns.
estimates
35 Reinganum Is CAPM misspecified or market US Data — [1962 CAPM OLS, The evidence in this study strongly suggests that the simple one-
(1981) inefficient? – 1978] period capital asset pricing model is misspecified. The set of
factors omitted from the equilibrium pricing mechanism seems to
be more closely related to firm size than E/P ratios.. The
misspecification, however, does not appear to be a market
inefficiency in the sense that ‘abnormal’ returns arise because of
transaction costs or informational lags.
36 Reinganum Does APT explain the differences in US Data — [1962 APT Factor analysis The evidence in this paper indicates that a parsimonious APT
(1981) average returns of firms? – 1978] fails this test. That is, portfolios of small firms earn on average
20% per year more than portfolios of large firms, even after
controlling for APT risk.
37 Weinstein Do bonds exhibit systematic risk/to which US Data — [1962 CAPM OLS, Beta and interest rate risk are positively related. The bond
(1981) extent interest rate and default risk explain – 1974] market is amenable to the same types of analyses as have been
cross sectional variation of bond’s risk? done in recent years on the stock market.
38 Roll (1981) Do small firms have higher returns even US Data — [1962 CAPM OLS, The mis-assessment of risk has the potential to explain why small
when their measured risk is no greater than – 1977] autocorrelation firms, low price/earnings ratio firms, and possibly high dividend
that of large firms? regression + yield firms display large excess returns (after adjustment for
Dimson beta risk). Positive auto-correlation induced in portfolios of such
estimator firms because of infrequent trading results in downward biased
measures of portfolio risk and corresponding overestimates of
"risk adjusted" average returns.

period] Techniques
39 Grauer (1981) Do mean variance and Linear Risk US Data — [ CAPM OLS At the macro level, the primary results are: (1) judged by the
Tolerance CAPM distinguishable? [1934 – 1971] generalized SML tests, the MV and a very wide variety of power
utility LRT models are indistinguishable; (2) in a pragmatic but
somewhat limited sense, in light of Roll's critique, the results are
not affected by the choice of either an equally or value-weighted
proxy for the market portfolio.
40 Banz (1981) Are returns and market value of common US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS and GLS The CAPM is misspecified. On average, small NYSE firms have
stocks related? – 1975] had significantly larger risk adjusted returns than large NYSE
firms over a forty year period.
41 Chen (1981) Do betas follow stationary process over US Data — [1966 CAPM OLS ,Optimal The OLS method is not an appropriate method to be used to
time? – 1975] Bayesian estimate portfolio residual risk if the beta coefficient is changing
estimator over time. The use of the OLS method will overestimate portfolio
residual risk and lead to the incorrect conclusion that larger
portfolio residual risk is associated with higher variability in
beta coefficient.
42 Figlewsk Do informational effects of restrictions US Data —[1973– CAPM OLS The hypothesis that prices of stocks for which there was
(1981) affect the stock returns? 1979] relatively more adverse information among investors would tend
to be too high, received empirical support from the tests
conducted in the paper.
43 Downes and Are the entrepreneurial ownership retention US Data — [1965 Leland and OLS Results offer strong support for the LP hypothesis. Firms in
Heinkel (1982) hypothesis and the dividend signaling – 1969] Pyle model which entrepreneurs retain high fractional ownership do indeed
hypothesis related to firm value? have higher values, as the theory predicts. On the other hand, the
BH dividend signaling hypothesis is rejected by the data. The
significant negative role found for dividends suggests that this
may be attributable to omitted, not readily observable, variables
from the valuation equation
44 Alexander, Can the systematic risk of mutual funds US Data — [1965 CAPM Regression, Mutual fund systematic risk theoretically can be modeled as a
et.al., (1982) theoretically be modeled? – 1973] Markov process, first - order Markov process when fund managers do not actively
Lamotte- engage in timing decisions.
Mcwhorter
45 Price, et.al., Are there systematic differences in the two US Data — [1927 CAPM and OLS At any rate, the results do not allow us to rest easy with the
(1982) risk measures? – 1968] lower assumption that CLPM/LPM = COV/V, and hence that the latter,
partial more familiar, measure can be used as our measure of systematic
CAPM risk.
46 Reinganum Is average return of small firm statistically US Data — [1963 CAPM OLS and The test results indicate that precise estimates of betas for small
(1982) different than big firms? – 1970] Dimson beta firms may be difficult to obtain. Nonetheless, even the highest
point estimate for the beta of the small firm portfolio did not
seem to account for its superior performance.

period] Techniques
47 Gibbons How a newly developed methodology US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS With no additional variable beyond, the substantive content of
(1982) performed in application. – 1975] the CAPM is rejected for the period 1926-1975 with a
significance level less than 0.001.
48 Casabona and Does the adjusted risk premium perform US Data — [1926 CAPM OLS The use of conventional risk premiums, calculated in the manner
Vora (1982) better than conventional use at risk – 1972] suggested by Roll may cause significant bias in the estimates of
premium in empirical test of CAPM the parameters of the market model.
49 Standish and Do corporate signaling impact the stock UK (United CAPM OLS Results indicate that, on average, there were positive unexpected
Swee-Im Ung price? Kingdom) — returns from investment in the sample of British companies which
(1982) [1964 – 1973] announced revaluations of fixed assets.
50 Klemkosky and Are there any relationship between US Data — [1954 CAPM OLS The wealth effect and the return variability effect of money are
Jun (1982) monetary changes and CAPM parameters? – 1980] shown to be the two important channels of the monetary impact
on the market risk premium for three representative classes of
utility functions.
51 Whaley and How earning announcements are anticipated US Data — [1973 CAPM OLS The evidence reported in this study indicates that the CBOE is an
Cheung (1982) in stock price? – 1977] efficient market. No profits net of transaction costs can be earned
in the option market by trading on the basis of firms' earnings
announcements.
52 Stambaugh How CAPM performs when different sets US Data — [1953 CAPM OLS and MLE Inferences based on the most inclusive set of assets - common
(1982) of asset return included in market portfolio? – 1976] stocks, bonds, and preferred stocks - reject the Sharpe-Lintner
version of the CAPM but do not reject the more general Black
version.
53 McDonald What is the functional form of CAPM and US Data — [1973 CAPM MLE For the researcher and the practitioner, the findings of this study
(1983) their effects on empirical evidence? – 1979] support the validity of applying the linear or logarithmic CAPM
in estimating systematic risk, versus a methodology that could
vastly complicate the estimation process.
54 Carter, et.al., Is future market efficient? US Data — [1966 CAPM OLS, GLS For an efficient portfolio and an application of the CAPM to
(1983) – 1976] futures contracts that allows for changing speculative position,
our analysis supports the generalized Keynesian theory of
normal backwardation.
55 Keim (1983) Are size related anomalies and stock return US Data — [1963 CAPM OLS, scholes Evidence indicates that daily abnormal return distributions in
seasonality persisted and stable over time ? – 1979] williams beta, January have large means relative to the remaining eleven
dimson beta months, and that the relation between abnormal returns and size
is always negative and more pronounced in January than in any
other month – even in years when, on average, large firms earn
larger risk-adjusted returns than small firms.
56 Dimson and Are the UK risk measures stable over time ? UK Data — [1955 CAPM OLS, Adjusted Thin trading can lead to serious bias in risk measures.
Marsh (1983) – 1979] betas Furthermore, since trading frequency is stable over time, this
bias will be persistent, and will impart a spurious stability to
estimates of beta and other risk measures.

period] Techniques
57 Elton and Does the impact of dividend yield explain US Data — [1927 Zero beta OLS There seems to be persistent patterns in excess returns which are
Gruber (1983) the deviations from returns CAPM – 1976] CAPM related to dividend yield. Some of these differences may be due to
produced? tax effects. Others have not as yet been adequately explained.
58 Hansen and How intertemporal relation of asset returns US Data — [1959 CAPM MLE Maximum likelihood estimation of the free parameters of most of
Singleton exists? – 1979] the monthly models yielded point estimates of the coefficients of
(1983) relative risk aversion that were between zero and two. The test
statistics provided little evidence against the models using the
value-weighted return on stocks listed on the New York
exchange.
59 Kryzanowski Is there a common factor affecting stock US Data — [1948 APT Factor analysis It seems reasonable to hypothesize that a factor structure of five
and Chau To returns? – 1977] (Rao’s factor factors is sufficient from an economic perspective.
(1983) analysis alpha
factor analysis)
60 Chen, Nai-Fu How APT and CAPM perform? US Data — [1963 CAPM and Factor analysis, Based on the empirical evidence gathered so far, the APT cannot
(1983) – 1978] APT OLS be rejected in favor of any alternative hypothesis, and the APT
performs very well against the CAPM as implemented by the
S&P 500, value weighted, and equally weighted indices.
Therefore, the APT is a reasonable model for explaining cross-
sectional variation in asset returns
61 Schultz (1983) Is transaction cost important factor for the US Data — [1962 CAPM Dimson beta The anomalous behavior of small firm returns cannot be
anomaly of small firm effect? – 1978] explained solely on the basis of differences in transaction costs
between small and large firms.
62 Brown and Do small firms have tended to yield returns US Data — [1967 CAPM OLS,SURM There are three new results here concerning size-related
Kleidon (1983) than those predicted by traditional CAPM? – 1975] anomalies in stock returns. First, we have shown that the relation
between excess returns and firm size can be regarded as linear in
the log of size. Second, the ex ante excess returns attributable to
size are not constant through time. Third, different estimation
methodologies can lead to different conclusions about the size
effects.
63 Stambaugh How the excluded return in indexes for real US Data — [1953 CAPM MLE None of the statistics rejects linearity at conventional
(1983) estate and durables estimated and affect the – 1976] significance levels, and the statistics and p-values are quite
mean variance theory? similar across indexes.

period] Techniques
64 Bey (1983) Is CAPM in the form of market model US Data — [1960 CAPM OLS The behavior of the market model for individual securities,
stationary over time? – 1979] utilities, and non-utilities varied considerably over time and was
dependent on the time period studied.
65 Basu (1983) How is the empirical relationship among US Data — [1962 CAPM OLS , Dimson The empirical findings reported in this paper indicate that, at
earnings’ yield, firm size and returns of – 1978] beta least during the 1963-80 time period, the returns on the common
common stocks? stock of NYSE firms appear to have been related to earnings’
yield and firm size. In particular, the common stock of high E/P
firms seem to have earned, on average, higher risk-adjusted
returns than the common stock of low E/P firms. On the other
hand, while the common stock of small NYSE firms appear to
have earned considerably higher returns than the common stock
of large NYSE firms, the size effect virtually disappears when
return are controlled for differences in risk and E/P ratios.
66 Brown and Are the common factors that affect stocks US Data — [1962 APT Factor analysis With very many observations it is possible to reject any
Weinstein returns constant over time? – 1972] (Jöreskog hypothesis at one's favorite level of statistical significance. When
(1983) algorithm) we adjust the size of the test to take this into account, our results
OLS,GLS are consistent with the three factors APM.
67 Cho, et.al., How zero beta and APT performs? US Data — [1973 Zero-beta Factor analysis In two simulation experiments, we find that while Roll and Ross
(1984) – 1980] CAPM,AP ,GLS (1980) procedure has a slight tendency to overstate the number
T of factors at work in the market, this tendency cannot account for
the large number of factors they found in their original article.
68 Cho (1984) Is APT valid model? US Data — [1962 APT GLS, factor Results indicate that there are five or six inter-group common
– 1982] analysis (inter- factors that generate daily returns for two groups and that these
battery) inter-group common factors do not depend on the size of groups.
Also, the APT could not be rejected in the sense that the risk-free
rate and the risk premium are the same across groups and that
the risk-free rate is different from zero.
69 Bower, et.al., Which model is better to estimate the US Data — [1971 APT and OLS (Theil APT does do better CAPM in explaining and conditionally
(1984) expected returns: APT or CAPM? – 1979] CAPM measure) forecasting return variations through the time and across assets.
70 Dhrymes, et.al., Are the numbers of factor increasing as the US Data — [1962 APT Factor analysis Results show that how many factors one "discovers" depends on
(1984) numbers of securities increase in testing – 1972] the size of the group of securities one deals with.
APT through factor analysis?
71 Hazuka (1984) Is there a linear relationship between risk US Data – [not C-CAPM OLS Both the intercept and the slope coefficients were significantly
premiums and consumption beta? stated] positive, as the theory predicted; however, the magnitude of the
intercept was smaller and that of the slope greater than
predicted.

period] Techniques
72 Dhrymes, et.al., Can the ability of risk measures from one US Data — [1962 APT Factor analysis Test results appear to be extremely sensitive to the number of
(1985) period to another explain returns? – 1981] (GLS) securities used in the two stages of the tests of the APT model.
New tests also indicate that unique risk is fully as important as
common risk. While these tests have serious limitations, they are
inconsistent with the APT.
73 Amsler and How artificial returns work in context of Artificial CAPM Monte Carlo The main results of our experiment are clear and easily
Schmidt (1985) CAPM test? (random) data experiment summarized: 1. The Wald test is unreliable. 2. Shanken’s tests
are unreliable. 3. The LR test is better than the tests in 1 and 2,
but it is still unreliable unless the sample size is very large. Its
problem is that it rejects the null hypothesis too often (when it is
true). 4. The LM test is considerably better than the tests in 1, 2
and 3. It is reasonably reliable except when T is small or K is
relatively large, in which case it exhibits a tendency to reject the
null hypothesis too seldom. 5. Shanken’s CSR test and Jobson
and Korkie’s LR test are quite reliable under all circumstances
which we consider. 6. There is no basis in our results to prefer
the CSR test to the LR test, or vice versa.
74 Brown and Which estimation method, parametric or US Data — [1926 Utility Method of The results from the overall period suggest no statistically
Gibbons (1985) non-parametric is better? – 1981] based asset moment and significant departure from log utility. The economic distinction
pricing parametric between RRA equal to one versus (say) two may not be very
models estimation important given the behavior of an individual to a timeless
gamble.
75 Barone-Adesi How arbitrage equilibrium with skewed US Data — [1926 Three OLS (likelihood Empirical tests try to relate ex post returns to ex ante
(1985) asset returns existed? – 1970] moment ratio) expectations. Their results are, therefore, sensitive to the
CAPM specification of this link. With this caveat, it appears that the
arbitrage equilibrium associated with the quadratic market
model is not a complete description of empirical security returns,
even though this arbitrage model appears to be of some utility in
understanding security pricing.
76 Ang and How is the role of yield (dividend) in US Data — [1973 CAPM(afte Maximum Results from the estimation of the after-tax CAPM indicate a
Peterson (1985) explaining stock returns? – 1983] r tax likelihood general positive and significant relationship between return and
adjusted ) yield, although there are years in which the relationship is
insignificant.
77 Shanken (1985) How zero beta CAPM performs? US Data — [1959 Zero-beta OLS,+ GLS The CRSP equally weighted index is inefficient, but that the
– 1971] CAPM inefficiency is not explained by a firm size-effect from February
to December.

period] Techniques
78 Yagil (1985) Is Index-Linked bond efficient in the Israel Data — CAPM OLS The empirical results indicated that the model presented was
content of CAPM? [1981 – 1984] somewhat successful in identifying incorrectly valued index
bonds, implying that this market is not perfectly efficient, at least
in the case of the Israeli index bond market.
79 Chan, Chen Is there a firm size effect in the context of US Data — [1953 Multi- OLS Among the economic variables included, the measure of the
and Hsieh multifactor models? – 1977] factor changing risk premium explained a large portion of the size
(1985) pricing effect.
models
(CAPM)
80 Best and How the relation between MV based CAPM US Data — [1935 CAPM Mean variance The result highlights a number of inconsistencies involved in MV
Grauer (1985) and observed market value weights is? – 1979] optimization modeling.
81 Gibbons and How financial models perform when risk US Data — [1962 CAPM OLS Asset pricing models can be estimated and tested without
Ferson premium is relaxed to be changing? – 1980] ,multi observing the market portfolio or state variables. Avoiding a
(1985) factors specification of these is a by-product of relaxing the assumption
that risk premiums are constant. While changing risk premiums
does require a model for conditional expected returns, a
regression model permits standard specification tests and is
robust to missing information.
82 Gultekin and How is the bond’s risk evaluated in context US Data — [1960 APT, OLS + factor It is found that at least two factors are linearly related to mean
Rogalski of APT and CAPM in addition with the – 1979] CAPM analysis bond portfolio returns. We did not, however, uncover a linear
(1985) interest rate? +seemingly relation between mean bond returns and various portfolio
unrelated proxies. Furthermore, multivariate test results are not supportive
regression + of the APT or the Sharpe Lintner and Black versions of the
GLS + CAPM.
83 Jagannathan Can future prices be modeled by US Data— [1960 – CCAPM GMM The model was rejected. It is possible that the asymptotic
(1985) consumption based intertemporal model? 1978] inference theory was not justified in our case due to the small
sample size. It is also possible that some of the underlying
assumptions were not satisfied.
84 Swidler (1985) How is the role of analyst’ forecasts taken US Data — [1982 CAPM OLS Firms neglected by analysts have greater divergence of opinion
place in the context of CAPM? – 1983] about the mean forecast.
85 Sweeney and Are the firms required to pay investors ex US Data — [1960 APT and MLE Changes in government bond yields clearly affect ex post returns
Warga (1986) ante premium for bearing this risk of – 1979] CAPM to electric utilities, and that this phenomenon is concentrated to a
interest-rate changes? much larger extent in this particular industry than in NYSE firms
as a whole.

period] Techniques
86 Korkie (1986) Is size anomaly related to a sample US Data— [1951 CAPM MLE The index lies on the efficient set hyperbola, the Black version
inefficient index? – 1980] (zero beta of the asset-pricing model is not rejected, and the small firm
CAPM ) anomaly disappears.
87 Dimson and How size effect is analyzed with event US Data — [1975 CAPM OLS + Event Overall performance can appear significantly positive or
Marsh (1986) study methodology? – 1982] study negative, depending on the choice of index and methodology.
88 Mankiw and How Consumption CAPM and CAPM US Data — [1959 CAPM and OLS + GLS The data examined in the paper provide no support for the
Shapiro (1986) performs ? – 1982] CCAPM consumption CAPM as compared to the traditional
formulation.
89 Jorion and How Canadian stock market integrated Canadian Data — CAPM and MLE An international CAPM was not a good description of the
Schwartz (1986) with NYSE? [1963 – 1982] lAPM pricing of Canadian securities for the period from 1968
through 1982. The joint hypothesis of integration of the North
American equity market combined with the CAPM it is
rejected. There is evidence of segmentation in the pricing of
Canadian stocks.
90 Litzenberger How utility based model performs? US Data — [1926 Utility OLS, MLE, Over the same holdout period, the utility-based model correctly
and Ronn – 1982] based model method of predicts the direction of aggregate common stock price
(1986) moments movements 70% of the time, which compares with a 55% for
the risk-neutral model, for the Williams-Gordon-Rubinstein
model, for the simple technical model.
91 Tinic and West How CAPM performs? US Data — [1935 CAPM OLS The results do not support the important implications of the
(1986). – 1982] CAPM.
92 McInish and What is the extent of bias in beta estimates US Data — [1971 CAPM Linear Evidence is provided that bias due to thin trading and price
Wood (1986) due to thin trading and price adjustment – 1972] programming adjustment delays is substantial for NYSE stocks when daily
delays? model to returns are used
estimate betas
93 McDonald How to deal with the abnormal returns US Data — [1961 CAPM OLS+GLS+IGL Although systems methods have various characteristics that are
(1987) when systems method is used in addition – 1985] S(iterated GLS ) amenable to event study applications, the promise of these
with event study? methods is not supported by a variety of empirical tests.
94 MacKINLAY How to distinguish CAPM from other asset US Data — [1954 CAPM Multivariate The tests can have reasonable power if the deviation is random
(1987) pricing model through multivariate tests? – 1983] tests across assets. But if the deviation is the result of missing
factors (as is the case in many competing models), the tests are
quite weak.
95 Corhay, et.al., How seasonality differs among stock US, UK and CAPM OLS Empirical evidence reveals a common characteristic across the
(1987) exchanges? France Data four stock exchanges: the presence of persistent seasonalities
[1969 – 1983] in these markets' risk premium and stock returns

period] Techniques
96 Cho and Taylor Do returns and correlation coefficients, US Data — [1973 APT Factor analysis The results show that there is a January effect and a small-firm
(1987) correlation matrices and covariance – 1983] (maximum effect in stock returns. Correlation matrices are more stable
matrices, the number of return-generating likelihood) + than covariance matrices, but both types of matrices are not
factors differ and pricing relationships modified GLS stable across months and across the sample groups. The
differ across calendar months and groups? number of return-generating factors is rather stable most of the
time and for most of the sample groups, but there is some
significant instability that is related to the average correlation
coefficients among stocks. The APT pricing relationship does
not seem to be supported by the two-stage process using the
maximum-likelihood factor analysis
97 Collins, et.al., Is there a broader and richer information US Data — [1968 CAPM OLS (random Price-based earnings will outperform univariate time series
(1987) set available about the activities of larger – 1980] walk model forecasts by a greater margin for larger firms than for smaller
firms vis-à-vis smaller firms? valuation model firms. Size is viewed as a proxy for available information in
+ RWM with addition to that which is reflected in the past time series of
drift) earnings and for the number of market participants gathering
and processing information.
98 Shanken (1987) How efficiency of given portfolio is tested US Data — [1926 MPT Bayesian The analysis indicates that significance levels higher than the
through Bayesian approach? – 1982] approach test for traditional 0.05 level are recommended for many test
efficiency situations. in an example from the literature. The classical test
fails to reject with p-value 0.082. Yet the odds are nearly two to
one against efficiency under apparently reasonable
assumptions.
99 Shanken (1987) How CAPM performs when different US Data — [1953 CAPM OLS+MLE Empirical evidence has been presented which suggests that
proxy for market portfolio is used? – 1983] either the Sharpe-Lintner CAPM is invalid or our proxies
account for at most two-thirds (rejected at the 0.05 level), or
perhaps only one-half (rejected at the 0.10 level), of the
variation in the true market return. The results are essentially
the same whether we use the CRSP equal-weighted stock index
alone, or together with the Ibbotson-Sinquefield long-term U.S.
government bond index, in a multivariate proxy.
100 French, et.al., Is the expected market risk premium US Data — [1928 CAPM OLS+WLS+ The expected market risk premium (the expected return on a
(1987) positively related to risk as measured by – 1984] modified WLS stock portfolio minus the Treasury bill yield) is positively
the volatility at the stock market? related to the predictable volatility of stock returns. There is
also evidence that unexpected stock market returns are
negatively related to the unexpected change in the volatility of
stock returns.

period] Techniques
101 Freeman Do the abnormal security returns related to US Data — [1966 CAPM OLS The security prices of large firms anticipate accounting
(1987) accounting earnings occur (begin and end) – 1982] earnings earlier than the security prices of small firms, and the
earlier for large firms than for small firms magnitude of abnormal returns associated with good or bad
(timing hypothesis)? news from a common class of signals (in the current study,
accounting earnings) is inversely related to firm size.
102 Ferson, et.al., How tests of asset pricing with time-varying US Data — [1963 CAPM Maximum A single risk premium model of expected returns is not rejected
(1987) expected risk premiums and market betas – 1982] likelihood if the premium is allowed to vary over time and if the risk
perform? methods measures associated with that premium are not constrained to
equal market betas.
103 Bollerslev, Do all investors choose mean-variance US Data — [1959 CAPM (GARCH-M) The conditional covariance matrix of the asset returns is
et.al., (1988) efficient portfolios with one period horizon – 1984] maximum strongly autoregressive. The data clearly reject the assumption
although they need not have identical utility likelihood that this matrix is constant over time.
functions? estimation
104 Kroll and Levy What are the effects of the correlations Experimental CAPM and Mean-variance As predicted by the CAPM, in most cases the subjects
(1988) between the risky assets on investment (questionnaire) MPT mathematics + diversified their investment capital among the three risky assets.
portfolios? Is separation theorem valid? data ANOVA However, on the average the subjects invested considerably
more than predicted in the riskiest asset. The introduction of a
riskless asset did not enhance homogeneity in investment
behavior, in contradiction to the Separation Theorem
105 Burmeister and How APT and CAPM perform? US Data — [1972 CAPM and Iterated The January effect is an important determinant of expected
McElroy – 1982] APT nonlinear WLS, returns. The existence of a January effect that is not explained
(1988) iterated by this set of factors is evident, but, it would be trivial to add a
nonlinear SUR portfolio that exhibits a strong January effect and hence
and iterated represents a "January factor." Including or excluding a
nonlinear three January effect has, however, no appreciable effect on the
stage least following results from nested testing: the CAPM restrictions on
squares. the APT are rejected; the APT restrictions on the LFM are not
rejected.
106 Connor and How APT and CAPM perform? US Data — [1964 APT and Asymptotic The APT performs much better than either implementation of
Korajczyk – 1983] CAPM principal the CAPM in explaining the January-specific mispricing related
(1988) component to firm size. This result is due to seasonality in the estimated
(factor risk premiums of the multi-factor model that is not captured by
analysis)+OLS the single-factor CAPM relations, even though the premium in
the latter model also exhibits seasonality
Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time period] Model Estimation Conclusion

Techniques
107 Chan and Nai- How CAPM performs? US Data — [1949 – CAPM OLS(modified Although our results show that the pricing equation cannot
Fu Chen (1988) 1983] OLS)+ SURR be rejected in favor of the alternative pricing equation with
the firm-size variable, theoretical reasoning suggests that we
should have a multifactor asset-pricing model if risks
corresponding to a changing investment opportunity set.
108 Jaffe, et.al., What is the relation at earnings yields, US Data — [1951 – CAPM SURR+OLS Research finds significant E/P and size effects when
(1989) market value (size) with stock returns? 1986] estimated across all months during the 1951-1986 period.
The findings also indicate a difference between January and
the rest of the year.
109 Korajczyk and How asset pricing models perform in US Data — [1969 – CAPM and OLS +factor There is some evidence against all of the models, especially
Viallet (1989) international settings? 1983] APT analysis in terms of pricing common stock of small-market-value
(asymptotic firms. Multifactor models tend to outperform single-index
principal CAPM-type models in both domestic and international forms.
components
technique)
110 Harlow and How MLPM performs? US Data — [1931 – MPLM OLS+SURR Using market data, the MLPM model was tested against an
Rao (1989) 1980] CAPM procedure unspecified alternative. For the CRSP equally weighted
index, the MLPM model could not be rejected for a large set
of alternative target rates of returns.
111 Bodurtha, and How CAPM (conditional) performs? US Data — [1926 – Conditional GMM (Garch It is found strong evidence of time variation in the
Mark (1991) 1985] CAPM specification) conditional first and second moments of excess stock returns.
The first- and third-order lags in the conditional variance of
the market risk premium, as well as in the conditional
covariance between the returns of five value-weighted
portfolios and the market were found to be significant. These
results suggest that monthly and quarterly variability
components are priced in equity excess returns.
112 Cochrane How investment-based CAPM performs? US Data — [1947 – Investment- OLS Investment returns do not explain the component of stock
(1991) 1987] based returns forecastable by dividend-price ratios. Dividend-price
CAPM ratios seem to forecast a long horizon component in stock
returns not present in investment returns.
113 Tan (1991) How three moment CAPM performs? US Data — [1970 – Three OLS The tests of the TMCAPM show that the average return over
1986] moment time on the selected mutual funds tends to deviate from the
CAPM predictions of the model. They are generally flatter than
predicted by TMCAPM, implying that tradeoffs of risks for
return are less than predicted.

Techniques
114 Lilian Ng How conditional CAPM performs? US Data — [1926 – Conditional GMM (GARCH Empirical results based on the pooled time series and cross-
(1991) 1987] CAPM specification) section of beta-ranked portfolio returns do not reject the
conditional mean-variance efficiency of the market proxy
portfolio. The findings also indicate that the ratio of expected
excess market return to the conditional market variance, or
the reward-to-risk ratio, is positively correlated with the level
of the conditional market variance. When tests are based on
ten size-sorted portfolios, however, the tests reject the model.
115 Hamori (1991) How C-CAPM performs? Japanese Data— C-CAPM GMM The estimation results of C-CAPM in Japan are totally
[1980 – 1988] different from those in the United States. These results are
not robust and at least in Japan the model is consistent with
the movements of asset returns.
116 Sauer and How CCAPM and CAPM perform? German Data— CCAPM GLS This research finds evidence that the CAPM is a better
Murphy (1992) [1968 – 1988] and CAPM indicator of capital asset pricing in Germany than the
CCAPM.
117 Fama and What is the relation of size and book-to- US Data — [1962 – CAPM OLS For the 1963-1990 period, size and book-to-market equity
French (1992) market equity with stock returns? 1989] capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns
associated with size, E/P, book-to-market equity, and
leverage.
118 Fama and What are the relevant factors that affect US Data — [1963 – CAPM and OLS The three stock-market factors are largely uncorrelated with
French (1993) stock and bond returns? 1991] Three factor one another and with the two term-structure factors. The
model regressions that use the proxy return for market portfolio,
SMB, HML, TERM and DEF as factors to explain stock and
bond returns thus provide a good summary of the separate
roles of the five factors in the volatility of returns and in the
cross-section of average returns.
119 Handa, et.al., How the return interval affects betas? US Data — [1926 – CAPM OLS+GLS Beta changes with the return interval because an asset
(1993) 1982] return’s covariance with the market return and the market
return’s variance may not change proportionately as the
return interval is varied. The evidence is consistent with the
market model betas changing predictably with the return
interval. Betas of high-risk securities increase with the
decrease with the return interval, whereas betas of low-risk
securities decrease with the return interval.
120 Zhou (1993) How asset pricing tests perform under US Data — [1926 – CAPM MLE If the returns are elliptically distributed, empirical studies
alternative distributions? 1986] that ignore the non-normality are likely to over-reject the
theory being tested, but the proposed approach can be used
to detect the magnitude of the over-rejection.

Techniques
121 Mei (1993) How APT and CAPM perform? US Data — [1989 – CAPM, GLS(3 SLS)+ Historical returns can be used to approximate the
1993] APT (Semiautoregressive unobservable factor loadings and factors can be estimated by
system )+factor running a series of semi autoregressions.
analysis
122 Chen and How APT performs? US Data — [1971 – APT “factor analysis + A number of tests are run in this study to compare the
Jordan (1993) 1986] GLS performance of two empirical versions of the APT, a factor
loading model (FLM) and a macroeconomic variable model
(MVM). The viability of the MVM to the FLM is suggested by
all three sets of test results.
123 Ferson and How multifactor model performs? 18 national equity Multifactor (SUR ) GMM Although previous studies do not reject the unconditional
Harvey markets — [1970 – model mean-variance efficiency of a world equity market portfolio,
(1993) 1989] we find that the world market betas provide a poor
explanation of the average returns across countries.
124 Pettengill, How CAPM performs? US Data — [1926 – CAPM OLS A systematic relation exists between beta and returns for the
et.al., (1995) 1990] total sample period and is consistent across subperiods and
across months in a year, and a positive tradeoff between
beta and average portfolio returns is observed.
125 Cochrane How investment-based CAPM performs? US Data – [not Investment GMM (iterated The simple investment return model performs surprisingly
(1996) stated] based GMM)+GLS well. The investment return factors significantly price assets,
CAPM the model is not rejected, and it is able to explain a wide
spread in expected returns, including managed portfolio
returns formed by multiplying returns with instruments.
126 Campbell How the multifactor model performs? US Data — [1952 – Multifactor GMM (VAR The implications of the intertemporal model for the
(1996) 1990] models specification) conditional moments of asset returns are strongly rejected,
although there is only weak evidence against its implications
for unconditional moments.
127 Jagannathan How conditional CAPM performs? US Data — [1962 – Conditional OLS+GMM When betas and expected returns are allowed to vary over
and Wang 1990] CAPM time by assuming that the CAPM holds period by period, the
(1996) size effects and the statistical rejections of the model
specifications become much weaker. When a proxy for the
return on human capital is also included in measuring the
return on aggregate wealth, the pricing errors of the model
are not significant at conventional levels. More importantly,
firm size does not have any additional explanatory power.

Techniques
128 Clare, et.al., How CAPM performs? UK Data — [1980 – CAPM NLSUR (Non- A significant and powerful role for beta in explaining
(1998) 1993] linear Seemingly expected returns is found.
Unrelated
Regression)
129 Naranjo, Do stocks with higher anticipated dividend US Data — [1963 – TFM OLS, SUR Returns are positively related to that yield. This holds true
et.al., (1998) yields earn higher risk-adjusted returns? 1994] even after making risk adjustments based on the Fama-
French factors and macroeconomic risk factors from the
asset pricing literature.
130 Chan, et.al., How common factor affect stock returns? US and Japanese Factor OLS, Factor The performance of these Macroeconomic factors to be quite
(1998) Data — [1968 – Models Analysis disappointing. With the exception of the factors related to the
1994] default premium and the term premium, the macroeconomic
factors do a poor job in explaining return co-variation.
131 Rouwenhorst Are similar return factors present around the 20 Emerging TFM OLS The return factors in emerging markets are qualitatively
(1999) world? Markets Data — similar to those in developed markets: Small stocks
[1975 – 1997] outperform large stocks, value stocks outperform growth
stocks and emerging markets stocks exhibit momentum.
132 Lettau and How CAPM and CCAPM perform? US Data-- [1963 – CAPM, OLS, GMM Scaled consumption CAPM does a good job of explaining the
Ludvigson 1998] CCAPM, celebrated value premium: portfolios with high book-to-
(2001) TFM market equity ratios also have returns that are more highly
Conditional correlated with the scaled consumption factors we consider,
CAPM and vice versa.
133 Dittmar How four moment CAPM performs? US Data — [1963 – FMCAPM, Hansen The pricing kernels implied by both a linear single- and a
(2002) 1995] TFM Jagannathan linear multi-factor model appear unable to explain the cross-
estimator (modified sectional variation in port folio returns.
GMM)
134 Wang (2003) How CAPM, conditional CAPM and three US Data — [1947 – CAPM – OLS+WLS+GMM+ The momentum effect does not seem to be a serious anomaly
factor model performs? 1995] conditional BHV to the nonparametric conditional version of the Fama and
CAPM , (Bansal,hsiesh,Visw French model. According to the model, the winners tend to
TFM onathan) have conditional expected returns that are significantly
higher than the losers.
135 Vorkink How different estimations techniques affect US Data — [1963 – CAPM OLS+GMM+HLV Contrary to the OLS and GMM estimators, the Hodgson,
(2003) tests’ results? 1995] Linton, and Vorkink (2002) estimator fails to reject the linear
CAPM on the group of size-sorted portfolios. We find that the
OLS-GMM rejection of the CAPM is driven by sensitivity to
outliers in the size-sorted data.
136 Acharya and How Liquidity Based CAPM performs? US Data — [1962 – Liquidity GMM The liquidity-adjusted CAPM explains the data better than
Pedersen 1999] Based the standard CAPM, while still exploiting the same degrees
(2005) CAPM of freedom.
Note: CAPM is referring to Sharpe Lintner CAPM; TFM is referring to Three Factor Model of Fama and French; FMCAPM is referring to Four Moment CAPM;
7. Concluding Remarks
The purpose of this paper is to give a comprehensive theoretical review devoted to asset pricing
models by emphasizing static and dynamic versions in the line with their empirical investigations.
This paper fills the gap in literature by giving a comprehensive review of the models and evaluating
the historical stream of empirical investigations in the form of structural empirical review. The
distinctiveness of the study is that this is the first attempt to review literature written on asset pricing
models and the empirical investigation conducted in the form of structural empirical review. In doing
so, the historical perspective of the concept and the place it will take in future are clarified and the way
further researches conducted will be explored. As it is highlighted in section 6, we present 136
research question investigated in asset pricing literature. Concluding remarks can be divided into two
main categories such as theoretical perspective and empirical investigation perspective. In terms of
theoretical perspective, we show that asset pricing models try to adopt additional variables into pricing
process. This procedure is starting with the relaxing one of the assumptions of the previous model or
approaching the problem from different perspectives. From static, one period model we see that
dynamic, intertemporal models get the higher attention than static, one period models. In terms of
empirical investigation perspective, it is documented that econometric advancement takes its biggest
place ever in financial literature when compared with the other field. Almost every single econometric
estimation technique is used to determine the most unbiased estimators of given model. This
underlines the fact that the direction of advancing a methodology is changing from financial literature
to economics due to the fact that there is huge account of raw data available to analyze. Future
research direction should be judging the empirical power of the asset pricing models and their role in
practice for incorporating a new dimension to the model.
References
Acharya, V.V., Pedersen, L.H. (2005), Asset Pricing with Liquidity Risk. Journal of Financial
Economics, 77 (2), 375–410.
Adler, M., Dumas, B. (1983), International Portfolio Choices and Corporation Finance: A Synthesis.
The Journal of Finance, 38(3), 925-984.
Alexander, G.J., Benson, P.G., Eger, C.E. (1982), Timing Decisions and the Behavior of Mutual Fund
Systematic Risk. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 17(4), 579-602.
Amsler, C. E., Schmidt, P. (1985), A Monte Carlo Investigation of the Accuracy of Multivariate
CAPM Tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(3), 359-375.
Ang, J. S., Peterson, D.R. (1985), Return, Risk, and Yield Evidence from Ex Ante Data. The Journal
of Finance, 40(2), 537-548.
Arbel, A., Kolodny, R., Lakonishok, J. (1977), The Relationship Between Risk of Default and Return.
The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12(4), 615-625
Bachrach B., Galai D. (1979), The Risk-Return Relationship and Stock Prices. Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, 14 (2), 421-441.
Baesel, J.B., Stein, G.R. (1979), The Value of Information: Inferences from the Profitability of Insider
Trading. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 14(3), 553 -571.
Balvers, R.J. (2001), Foundations of Asset Pricing. Lecture Notes, West Virginia University.
Banz, R.W. (1981), The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks. Journal
of Financial Economics, 9 (1), 3-18.
Barberis, N., Thaler, R., (2003), A Survey of Behavioral Finance. Handbook of the Economics of
Finance, Edited by G.M. Constantinides, M. Harris and R. Stulz, Elsevier Science B.V.
Barber, B. M., Odean, T. (1999), The Courage of Misguided Convictions. Financial Analysts Journal,
55(6), 41-55.
Barber, B. M., Odean, T. (2001), Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock
Investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261-292.
Bar-Hillel, M., Neter, E. (1996), Why Are People Reluctant to Exchange Lottery Tickets? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 17-27
Barry, P.J. (1980), Capital Asset Pricing and Farm Real Estate. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 62(3), 549-553.
Basu, S. (1983), The Relationship Between Earnings’ Yield, Market Value and Return for NYSE
Common Stocks: Further Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(1), 129-156.
Baxter, M., Jermann, U. (1997), The International Diversification Puzzle is Worse than You Think.
American Economic Review, 87(1), 170-180.
Bawa, V., Lindenberg, E. (1977), Capital Market Equilibrium in a mean, Lower Partial Moment
Framework. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 189-200.
Benartzi, S. (2001), Excessive Extrapolation and Allocation of 401(k) Accounts to Company Stocks.
Journal of Finance, 56(5), 1747-1764.
Benartzi, S., Thaler, R.H. (2001), Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Savings
Plan. American Economic Review, 91(1), 79-98.
Best, M. J., Grauer, R.R. (1985), Capital Asset Pricing Compatible with Observed Market Value
Weights. The Journal of Finance, 40(1), 85-103.
Bey R. P., (1983), Market Model Stationarity of Individual Public Utilities. The Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, 18(1), 67 -85.
Black, F. (1972), Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing. Journal of Business, 45(3),
444-54.
Black, F., Scholes M. (1973), The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. Journal of Political
Economy, 81 (May–June), 637–654.
Bikhcandani, S., Sharma, S. (2000), Herd Behavior in Financial Markets. IMF Staff Papers,
WP/00/48, International Monetary Fund
Bodie, Z., Kane, A., Markus, A.J. (2008), Investment, 7th edn., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1221 Aveneu of
the Americas, New York, US.
Bodurtha, J. N.Jr., Mark, N.C., (1991), Testing the CAPM with Time-Varying Risks and Returns. The
Bower, D. H., Bower, R.S., Logue, D. E. (1984), Arbitrage Pricing Theory and Utility Stock Returns.
Bollerslev, T., Engle, R.F., Wooldridge, J.M. (1988), A Capital Asset Pricing Model with Time-
Varying Covariances. The Journal of Political Economy, 96(1), 116-131.
Breeden, D. T. (1979), An Intertemporal Asset Pricing Model with Stochastic Consumption and
Investment Opportunities. Journal of Financial Economics, 7 (3), 265-96.
Brenner, M., Smidt S. (1977), A Simple Model of Non-Stationarity of Systematic Risk. Journal of
Finance, 32(4), 1081-1092.
Brewer, H. L. (1981), Investor Benefits from Corporate International Diversification. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16 (1), 113-126.
Brock, W. A. (1979), Asset Prices in a Production Economy. Social Science Working Paper 275,
California Institute of Technology.
Brown, S. L. (1979), Autocorrelation, Market Imperfections, and the CAPM. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, 14 (5), 1027-1034.
Brown, P., Kleidon, A.W., Marsh, T.A. (1983), New Evidence on the Nature of Size-Related
Anomalies in Stock Prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(1), 33-56.
Brown, D. P., Gibbons, M. R. (1985), A Simple Econometric Approach for Utility-Based Asset
Pricing Models. The Journal of Finance, 40(2), 359-381.
Brown, S. J., Weinstein, M. I. (1983), A New Approach to Testing Asset Pricing Models The Bilinear
Paradigm. The Journal of Finance, 38(3), 711-743.
Burmeister, E., McElroy, M.B. (1988), Joint Estimation of Factor Sensitivities and Risk Premia for the
Arbitrage Pricing Theory. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 721-733.
Camerer,C., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Thaler, R. (1997), Labor Supply of New York City
Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 407-441.
Campbell, J.Y. (1996), Understanding Risk and Return. The Journal of Political Economy, 104(2),
298-345
Carter, C.A., Rausser, G.C., Schmitz, A. (1983), Efficient Asset Portfolios and the Theory of Normal
Backwardation. The Journal of Political Economy, 91(2), 319-331.
Casabona, P. A., Vora, A. (1982), The Bias of Conventional Risk Premiums in Empirical Tests of the
Capital Asset Pricing Model. Financial Management, 11 (2), 90-96.
Chan, K. C., Chen, N.F., Hsieh, D.A. (1985), An Exploratory Investigation of the Firm Size Effect.
Journal of Financial Economics, 14(3), 451-471.
Chan, L.K.C., Karceski, J., Lakonishok, J. (1998), The Risk and Return from Factors. The Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 33(2), 159-188.
Chan, K. C., Chen, N.F. (1988), An Unconditional Asset-Pricing Test and the Role of Firm Size as an
Instrumental Variable for Risk. The Journal of Finance, 43(2), 309-325.
Chen, S.N. (1981), Beta Nonstationarity, Portfolio Residual Risk and Diversification. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16 (1), 95-111
Cheng, P. L., Grauer, R.R. (1980), An Alternative Test of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. American
Economic Review, 70 (4), 660-671.
Chen, N.F. (1983), Some Empirical Tests of the Theory of Arbitrage Pricing. The Journal of Finance,
38 (5), 1393-1414.
Chen, S.J., Jordan, B.D. (1993), Some empirical tests in the Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Macrovariables
vs. derived factors. Journal of Banking and Finance, 17(1), 65-89.
Cho, D. C. (1984), On Testing the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Inter-Battery Factor Analysis. The
Cho, D.C., Taylor., W.M. (1987), The Seasonal Stability of the Factor Structure of Stock Returns.
Cho, D.C., Elton, E.J., Gruber, M.J. (1984), On the Robustness of the Roll and Ross Arbitrage Pricing
Theory. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 19(1), 1- 10.
Clare, A.D., Smith P.N., Thomas S.H. (1997), UK stock returns and robust tests of mean variance
efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(5), 641-660.
Cochrane, J. H. (1991), Production-Based Asset Pricing and the Link Between Stock Returns and
Economic Fluctuations. The Journal of Finance, 46(1), 209-37.
Cochrane, J. H. (1996), A Cross-Sectional Test of an Investment-Based Asset Pricing Model. Journal
of Political Economy, 104(3), 572-621.
Cochrane, J. H. (2005), Asset Pricing, (revised edition) Published by Princeton University Press, 41
William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, US.
Collins, D. W., Rozef, M. S., Dhaliwal, D.S. (1981), The Economic Determinants of The Market
Reaction to Proposed Mandatory Accounting Changes in The Oil and Gas Industry: A Cross-
Sectional Analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(1), 37-71
Collins, D.W., Kothari, S.P., Rayburn, J.D. (1987), Firm Size and the Information Content of Prices
with Respect to Earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 9(2), 111-138.
Connor, G., Korajczyk, R.A. (1988), Risk and Return in an Equilibrium APT: Application to New
Test Methodology. Journal of Financial Economics, 21(2), 255-289.
Constantinides, G.M., Harris, M., Stulz, R.M.(editors) (2003), Handbook of The Economics of
Finance Volume 1b. Elsevier B.V. Sara Burgerhartstraat 25, P.O. Box 211, 1000 AE
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corhay, A., Hawawini, G., Michel, P. (1987), Seasonality in the Risk-Return Relationship Some
International Evidence. The Journal of Finance, 42(1), 49-68.
Daniel, K. D., Hirshleifer, D., Subrahmanyam, A. (1998), Investor Psychology and Security Market
Under- and Overreactions. Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1839-1885.
Daniel, K., Titman, S. (1999), Market Efficiency in an Irrational World. Financial Anlaysts Journal,
55(6), 28-40.
De Bondt, W. F. M., Thaler, R. (1985), Does the Stock Market Overreact? The Journal of Finance,
40(3), 793-805.
De Bondt, W. F. M., Thaler, R. (1987), Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market
Seasonality. 42(3), 557-581
Dimson, E., Marsh P. R. (1983), The Stability of UK Risk Measures and the Problem of Thin Trading.
Dimson, E., Marsh, P. (1986), Event Study Methodologies and the Size Effect: The Case of UK Press
Recommendations. Journal of Financial Economics, 17(1), 113-142.
Dittmar. R. R. (1999), Nonlinear Pricing Kernels, Kurtosis Preference, and Evidence from the Cross-
Section of Equity Returns. Working Paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dittmar, R.F. (2002), Nonlinear Pricing Kernels, Kurtosis Preference, and Evidence from the Cross
Section of Equity Returns. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 369-403
Dhrymes, P. J., Friend, I., Gultekin, M.N., Gultekin, N. B. (1985), New Tests of the APT and Their
Implications. The Journal of Finance, 40(3), 659-674
Dhrymes, P.J., Friend, I., Gultekin, N.B. (1984), A Critical Reexamination of the Empirical Evidence
on the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. The Journal of Finance, 39(2), 323-346.
Downes, D.H., Heinkel, R. (1982), Signaling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues. Journal of
Finance, 37(1), 1-10
Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, Ambiguity, and Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4),
643-669.
Elton, E.J., Gruber, M.J. (1983), A Simple Examination of the Empirical Relationship between
Dividend Yields and Deviations from the CAPM. Journal of Banking and Finance, 7(1), 135-
146.
Fama, F., French, K.R. (1988), Permanent and Temporary Components of Stock Prices. The Journal of
Political Economy, 96(2), 246-273.
Fama, F., French, K.R. (1996), Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies. Journal of
Finance, 51(1), 55-84.
Fama, E.F., French, K.R. (1992), The Cross-Section of Expected Returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2),
427-465.
Fama, E. F., French, K. R. (1993), Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds. Journal
of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
Fang, H., Lai, T. (1997), Co-Kurtosis and Capital Asset Pricing. The Financial Review, 32(2), 293-
307.
Ferson, W.E., Kandel, S., Stambaugh, R.F. (1987), Tests of Asset Pricing with Time-Varying
Expected Risk Premiums and Market Betas. The Journal of Finance, 42(2), 201-220
Ferson, W.E., Harvey, C.R. (1993), The Risk and Predictability of International Equity Returns. The
Review of Financial Studies, 6(3), 527-566.
Figlewski, S. (1981), The Informational Effects of Restrictions on Short Sales Some Empirical
Evidence. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16(4), 463-476
Finnerty, J.E. (1976), Insiders and Market Efficiency. Journal of Finance, 31(4), 1141-1148.
French, K.R., Schwert, G.W., Stambaugh, R.F.(1987), Expected Stock Returns and Volatility. Journal
of Financial Economics, 19(1), 3-29.
French, K., Poterba, J. (1991), Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets. American
Economic Review, 81(2), 222-226.
Freeman, R.N. (1987), The Association between Accounting Earnings and Securıty Returns for Large
and Small Fırms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 9(2), 195-228.
Friend, I. Westerfield, R. Granito, M. (1978), New Evidence on the Capital Asset Pricing Model.
Journal of Finance, 33 (3), 903-917.
Fogler, H. R., Kose J., Tipton, J. (1981), Three Factors, Interest Rate Differentials and Stock Groups.
Journal of Finance, 36 (2), 323-335.
Fowler, D.J., Rorke C.H., Jog, V.M. (1979), Heteroscedasticity, R square and Thin Trading on the
Toronto Stock Exchange. Journal of Finance, 34 (5), 1201-1210.
Gibbons, M. R. (1982), Multivariate Tests of Financial Models: A New Approach. Journal of
Financial Economics, 10(1), 3-27.
Gibbons, M.R., Ferson, W. (1985), Testing Asset Pricing models with changing expectations and an
unobservable market portfolio. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(2), 217-236.
Gray, D.F., Merton, R.C., Bodie, Z. (2007), Contingent Claims Approach to Measuring and Managing
Sovereign Credit Risk. Journal of Investment Management, 5(4), 5–28.
Barone-Adesi, G. (1985), Arbitrage Equilibrium with Skewed Asset Returns. The Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, 20(3), 299 -313.
Gultekin, N.B., Rogalski, R.J. (1985), Government Bond Returns, Measurement of Interest Rate Risk,
and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. The Journal of Finance, 40(1), 43-61.
Goldberg, M.A., Vora A. (1978), Bivariate Spectral Analysis of the Capital Asset Pricing Model.
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 13 (3), 435-459.
Goldberg, M.A., Vora, A. (1977), Spectral Analysis of Public Utility Returns. Journal of Econometrics
6(1) 79-101.
Griffin, P.A. (1976), Competitive Information in the Stock Market: An Empirical Study of Earnings,
Dividends and Analysts' Forecasts. Journal of Finance, 31 (2), 631-650.
Grauer, R.R. (1978), Generalized Two Parameter Asset Pricing Models: Some Empirical Evidence.
Journal of Financial Economics, 6(1), 11-32
Grauer, R. R. (1981), Investment Policy Implications of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. Journal of
Finance, 36 (1), 127-141.
Hamori, S. (1991), Tests of C-CAMP for Japan. Economics Letters, 38(1), 67-72.
Hansen, L.P., Singleton, K.J. (1983), Stochastic Consumption, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal
Behavior of Asset Returns. The Journal of Political Economy, 91(2), 249-265.
Handa, P., Kothari, S. P., Wasley, C. (1993), Sensitivity of Multivariate Tests of the Capital Asset-
Pricing Model to the Return Measurement Interval. The Journal of Finance, 48(4), 1543-1551.
Harlow, W.V., Rao, R. K. S. (1989), Asset Pricing in a Generalized Mean-Lower Partial Moment
Framework: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 24(3), 285-
311.
Hazuka, T. B. (1984), Consumption Betas and Backwardation in Commodity Markets. The Journal of
Finance, 39(3), 647-655.
Hogan, W., Warren, J. (1974), Toward the Development of an Equilibrium Capital Market Model
Based on Semivariance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9(1), 1-11.
Hong, H., Kubik, J.D., Stein, J. C. (2004), Social Interaction and Stock-Market Participation.
Working Papers, Standford Bussiness School.
Jagannathan, R., Wang, Z. (1996), The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expected
Returns. Journal of Finance, 51(1), 3-53.
Jagannathan, R. (1985), An Investigation of Commodity Futures Prices Using the Consumption-Based
Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model. The Journal of Finance, 40(1), 175-191.
Jaffe, J., Keim, D.B., Westerfield, R. (1989), Earnings Yields, Market Values, and Stock Returns. The
Johnson, E.J., Tversky, A. (1983), Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20-31.
Jorion, P., Schwartz, E. (1986), Integration vs. Segmentation in the Canadian Stock Market. The
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Keim, D. B. (1983), Size-Related Anomalies and Stock Return Seasonality: Further Empirical
Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(1), 13-32.
Keller, C., Kunzel, P., Souto, M. (2007), Measuring Sovereign Risk in Turkey: An Application of the
Contingent Claims Approach. IMF Working Paper, WP/07/233, International Monetary Fund.
Klemkosky, R.C., Jun, K. W. (1982), The Monetary Impact on Return Variability and Market Risk
Premia. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 17(5), 663 -681.
Korkie, B. (1986), Market Line Deviations and Market Anomalies with Reference to Small and Large
Firms. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 21(2), 161-180.
Kraus, A., Litzenberger, R.H. (1976), Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. Journal of
Finance, 31(4), 1085-1100.
Kroll, Y., Levy, H., Rapoport, A. (1988), Experimental Tests of the Separation Theorem and the
Capital Asset Pricing Model. The American Economic Review, 78(3), 500-519.
Korajczyk, R.A., Viallet, C.J. (1989), An Empirical Investigation of International Asset Pricing. The
Review of Financial Studies, 2(4), 553-585.
Kryzanowski, L., Chau, T. M. (1983), General Factor Models and the Structure of Security Returns.
The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 18(1), 31-52.
Lettau, M., Ludvigson, S. (2001), Resurrecting the (C)CAPM: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk
Premia Are Time-Varying. The Journal of Political Economy, 109(6), 1238-1287.
Lee, C.F. (1977), Functional Form, Skewness Effect, and the Risk-Return Relationship. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12 (1), 55-72.
Levy, H. (1980), The Capital Asset Pricing Model, Inflation, and the Investment Horizon The Israeli
Experience. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 15 (3), 561-593.
Lessard, D.R. (1974), World, National, and Industry Factors in Equity Returns. Journal of Finance, 29
(2), 379-391.
Levhari, D., Levy, H. (1977), The Capital Asset Pricing Model and the Investment Horizon. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 59 (1), 92-104.
Lintner, J. (1965), The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock
Portfolios and Capital Budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), 13-37.
Litzenberger, R.H., Ronn, E.I.(1986), A Utility-Based Model of Common Stock Price Movements.
Lloyd, W.P., Shick, R. A. (1977), A Test of Stone's Two-Index Model of Returns. Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, 12(3), 363-376.
Lucas, R. (1978), Asset Prices in an Exchange Economy. Econometrica, 46(6), 1429-1445.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., Lepper, M.R. (1979), Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The
Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
MacGregor, D.G. (2002), Imagery and Financial Judgement. Journal of Psychology and Financial
Markets, 3(1), 15-22.
MacKinlay, A.C. (1987), On Multivariate Tests of the CAPM. Journal of Financial Economics, 18(2),
341-371.
Markowitz, H. M. (1952), Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Markowitz, H. M. (1959), Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investment. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, US.
Mankiw, N.G., Shapiro, M.D. (1986), Risk and Return: Consumption Beta Versus Market Beta. The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(3), 452-459.
Mayers, D. (1972), Nonmarketable Assets and Capital Market Equilibrium Under Uncertainty. Studies
in the Theory of Capital Markets (edited by Michael C. Jensen), 223-48. Praeger Publishers,
N.Y. (cited in Jagannathan, R. and Z. Wang. (1996))
McDonald, B. (1983), Functional Forms and the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 18(3), 319 -329.
McDonald, B. (1987), Event Studies and Systems Methods Some Additional Evidence. The Journal of
McInish, T.H., Wood, R.A. (1986), Adjusting for Beta Bias: An Assessment of Alternate Techniques:
A Note. The Journal of Finance, 41(1), 277-286.
Mei, J. (1993), A Semiautoregression Approach to the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. The Journal of
Finance, 48(2), 599-620.
Mehra, R., Prescott, E.C. (1985), The Equity Premium: A Puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics,
15(2), 145-161.
Merton, R.C. (1972), An Analytic Derivation of the Efficient Portfolio Frontier. The Journal of
Merton, R. C. (1973), An Intertemporal Capital Assets Pricing Model. Econometrica, 41(5), 867-87.
Merton, R.C. (1980), On Estimating the Expected Return on the Market: An Exploratory
Investigation. Journal of Financial Economics, 8(4), 323-361.
Miller, T.W., Gressis, N. (1980), Nonstationarity and Evaluation of Mutual Fund Performance. Journal
of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 15(3), 639-654.
Mossin, J. (1966), Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market. Econometrica, 34(4), 768-83.
Ng, L. (1991), Tests of the CAPM with Time-Varying Covariances: A Multivariate GARCH
Approach. The Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1507-1521.
Naranjo, A., Nimalendran, M., Ryngaert, M. (1998), Stock Returns, Dividend Yields, and Taxes. The
Oldfield, G. S.Jr., Rogalski R. J. (1981), Treasury Bill Factors and Common Stock Returns. Journal of
Finance, 36 (2), 337-350.
Pettengill, G.N., Sundaram, S., Mathur, I. (1995), The Conditional Relation between Beta and Returns.
The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 30(1), 101-116.
Pettit, R. R., Westerfield, R. (1974), Using the Capital Asset Pricing Model and the Market Model to
Predict Security Returns. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9(4), 579- 605.
Pogue, G.A., Solnik, B.H. (1974), The Market Model Applied to European Common Stocks Some
Empirical Results. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9 (6), 917-944.
Price, K., Price B., Nantell T.J. (1982), Variance and Lower Partial Moment Measures of Systematic
Risk Some Analytical and Empirical Results. The Journal of Finance, 37(3), 843-855.
Reinganum, M.R. (1981), A New Empirical Perspective on the CAPM. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, 16(4), 439-462.
Reinganum, M.R. (1981), Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing. Journal of Financial Economics,
9(1), 19-46.
Reinganum, M.R. (1981), The Arbitrage Pricing Theory Some Empirical Results. Journal of Finance,
36 (2), 313-321.
Reinganum, M.R. (1982), A Direct Test of Roll's Conjecture on the Firm Size Effect. The Journal of
Finance, 37(1), 27-35.
Roll, R. (1977), A Critique of the Asset Pricing Theory's Tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 4(2),
129-76.
Roll, R., Ross S.A. (1980), An Empirical Investigation of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. Journal of
Finance, 35 (5), 1073-1103.
Roll, R. (1981), A Possible Explanation of the Small Firm Effect. Journal of Finance, 36 (4), 879-888.
Ross, S. (1976), Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing. Journal of Economic Theory, 13(3), 341-
360.
Rouwenhorst, K.G. (1999), Local Return Factors and Turnover in Emerging Stock Markets. The
Rubinstein, M. E. (1973), The Fundamental Theorem of Parameter-Preference Security Valuation.
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 8(1), 61-69.
Saunders, E. M. (1993), Stock Prices and Wall Street Weather. American Economic Review, 83(5),
1337-1345.
Schultz, P. (1983), Transaction Costs and the Small Firm Effect: A Comment. Journal of Financial
Economics, 12(1), 81-88.
Schallheim, J., Demagistris, R. (1980), New Estimates of the Market Parameters. Financial
Management, 9(3), 60-68.
Scott, E., Brown, S. (1980), Biased Estimators and Unstable Betas. Journal of Finance, 35 (1), 49-55.
Shanken, J. (1985), Multivariate Tests of the Zero-Beta CAPM. Journal of Financial Economics,
14(3), 327-348.
Shanken, J. (1987), Multivariate Proxies And Asset Pricing Relations. Journal of Financial
Economics, 18(1), 91-110.
Shanken, J. (1987), Nonsynchronous Data and the Covariance-Factor Structure of Returns. The
Journal of Finance, 42(2), 221-231
Sharpe, W. F. (1964), Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of
Risk. Journal of Finance, 19(4), 425-442.
Shefrin, H., Statman, M. (1985), The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too
Long: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Finance, 40(3), 777-790.
Shefrin, H. (2005), A Behavioral Approach to Asset Pricing. Elsevier Academic Press 30, Corporate
Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA.
Shiller, R. J. (1998), Human Behavior and the Efficiency of the Financial System. John B. Taylor and
Michael Woodford, Editors, Handbook ofMacroeconomics. www.nber.org, no: 6375.
Shiller, R. J. (2003), From Efficient Market Theory to Behavioral Finance. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 17(1), 83-104.
Solnik, B. H. (1974a), An Equilibrium Model of the International Capital Market. Journal of
Economic Theory, 8(4), 500-24.
Solnik, B.H. (1974b), The International Pricing of Risk: An Empirical Investigation of the World
Capital Market. Journal of Finance, 29 (2), 365-378.
Solnik, B.H. (1977), Testing International Asset Pricing Some Pessimistic Views. Journal of Finance,
32 (2), 503-512.
Stambaugh, R.F. (1982), On The Exclusion of Assets from Tests of the Two-Parameter Model.
Journal of Financial Economics, 10(3), 237-268.
Stambaugh, R.F. (1983), Testing The CAPM with Broader Market Indexes. Journal of Banking and
Finance, 7(1), 5-16.
Standish, P. E. M., Ung, S. (1982), Corporate Signaling, Asset Revaluations and the Stock Prices of
British Companies. The Accounting Review, 57(4), 701-715
Sauer, A., Murphy, A. (1992), An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Models of Capital Asset
Pricing in Germany. Journal of Banking and Finance, 16(1), 183-196.
Statman, M. (2002), Lottery Players/Stock Traders. Financial Analysts Journal, 58(1), 14-21.
Sweeney, R.J., Warga, A.D. (1986), The Pricing of Interest-Rate Risk Evidence from the Stock
Market. The Journal of Finance, 41(2), 393-410.
Swidler, S. (1985), An Empirical Analysis of Analysts’ Forecasts. Economics Letters, 17(4), 404-405
Tan, K.J. (1991), Risk Return and the Three-Moment Capital Asset Pricing Model: Another look.
Journal of Banking and Finance, 15(2), 449-460.
Taylor, S., Brown, J. D. (1988), Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on
Mental Health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210
Thaler, R.H. (2000), From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
14(1), 133-141.
Tinic, S.M., West, R.R., (1986), Risk, Return, and Equilibrium A Revisit. The Journal of Political
Economy, 94(1), 126-147.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1971), Belief in the Law of Small Numbers. Psychological Bulletin,
76(2), 105-110.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1973), Availability: A Heuristics for Judging Frequency and Probability.
Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974), Judgement under Uncertainity: Heuristics and Biases. Science,
185(4157), 1124-1131.
Vorkink, K. (2003), Return Distributions and Improved Tests of Asset Pricing Models. The Review of
Financial Studies, 16(3), 845-874.
Whaley, R.E., Cheung, J.K. (1982), Anticipation of Quarterly Earnings Announcements. Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 4(2), 57-83.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980), Unrealistic Optimism about Future Life Events. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.
Weinstein, M. (1981), The Systematic Risk of Corporate Bonds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 16(3), 257-278.
Wang, K.Q. (2003), Asset Pricing with Conditioning Information: A New Test. The Journal of
Finance, 58(1), 161-196.
Yagil, J. (1985), Index Bonds: An Empirical Examination Using the CAPM. Economics Letters,
19(4), 377-380.
Zhou, G. (1993), Asset-Pricing Tests Under Alternative Distributions. The Journal of Finance, 48(5),
1927-1942.

Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues

Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp.141-178

Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models:

Figure 1. Stems of Asset Pricing Perspectives

Neo-Classical Based Behavioral Based

Preferences over uncertain wealth distributions

Von Neumann–Morgenstern Prospect theory

Appropriate statistical judgments

Bayesian techniques Heuristics and biases

Behavioral asset pricing

CAPM OPT Overreaction

Table 1. Theoretical Development of CAPM

Markowitz Mean-Variance Algorithm Markowitz (1952;1959)

Sharpe-Lintner CAPM Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), Mossin (1966)

International CAPM Solnik (1974a), Adler and Dumas (1983)

The Consumption CAPM Breeden (1979)

Graph 1. Cross citations in reviewed articles

cross citations in reviewed articles

Serach for 'CAPM Search for 'Capital Asset

4. Theoretical Framework of Static Asset Pricing Models

Black Zero-beta CAPM

The CAPM with Non-Marketable Human Capital

 P COVRXi , RMi   PH COVRXi , RMi 

The CAPM with Multiple Consumption Goods

VARRP COV RX , RM   COV RM , RP COV RX , RP 

VARRP COV RX , RP   COV RM , RP COV RX , RM 

COV RX , RWM 

Arbitrage Pricing Theory

ER X   0  1  X 1 X  1, 2,...., n ...............................................................(6.1)

E R X   r f  1  X 1 X  1,2,...., n ............................................................... (6.2)

E R X   r f  1  X 1   2  X 2  ....   K  XK X  1,2,...., n ............................(6.3)

The Fame-French Three Factor Model

Partial Variance Approach Model

The Three Moments CAPM

R Xi  r f  c0i  c1i RMi  r f   c 2i RM  R M  

market model by ( R M  R M ) 2 , taking expected values and dividing through by ( R M  R M ) 3 , yields en

The Four Moments CAPM

5. Theoretical Framework of Dynamics Asset Pricing Models

E R X   r f  1 X E R M   r f    2 X E R NF   r  .......... .......... .......... .......... ......(11)

COV R X , RY  COV RNF , RM 

The Consumption CAPM

E R X   r f   X ,C E RC   r f  .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...(12)

ERC  is return obtained by creating a mimicking portfolio with stochastic return

Production Based CAPM

f (.) is production function

g (.) is function for adjustment costs to investment

Liquidity Based CAPM

0t 1 is the conditional expected return on a ‘zero-beta’ portfolio,

6. Structural Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Studies

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion

Code Reference Research Question Data-[Time Model Estimation Conclusion