The Evolution of Capital Asset Pricing Models

The Evolution of Capital Asset Pricing Models

Sheng-Syan Chen, National Taiwan UniversityCheng-Few Lee, Rutgers UniversityYi-Cheng Shih, National Taipei UniversityPo-Jung Chen, National Taiwan University

Outline

1. Introduction2. Intertemporal Models3. Supply-Side Effect Models4. International CAPM5. Equilibrium Models with Heterogeneity6. Dividend and Taxation Effect Models7. Skewness Effect Models8. Behavioral Finance 9. Liquidity-based Models10. Existence of Equilibrium11. Empirical Tests12. Conclusion

Abstract Based upon Markowitz (1952, 1959) Mean-Variance Portfolio Theory and six critical

assumptions, Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Mossin (1966) have derived and developed the static Capital Asset Pricing Model. During the four past decades, the CAPM has been the benchmark of asset pricing models, and most empirical apply it to calculate asset returns and the cost of capital. To relax the original six assumptions, many researchers have tried to generalize the static CAPM by Sharpe, Lintner, and Mossin. In addition, many researchers have also tried to develop the dynamic Capital Asset Pricing Models.

In this paper, we survey the important alternative theoretical models of the Capital Asset Pricing for last four and half decades. We organize these theoretical models, as follows: (i) Merton’s Intertemporal CAPM, (ii) Consumption-based Intertemporal CAPM, (iii) Production-based Intertemporal CAPM, (iv) CAPM with Supply-side Effect, (v) International Equilibrium CAPM with Heterogeneity Beliefs and Investors, (vi) Equilibrium CAPM with Heterogeneity Investment Horizon, (vii) CAPM with Dividend and Taxation Effect, (viii) CAPM with Skewness Effect, and (ix) Behavioral Finance, and Liquidity-based CAPM. The interrelationship among these models is also discussed in some detail.

The results of this paper might be used as a guideline for future theoretical and empirical research in capital asset pricing. More specifically, we suggest three possible directions for future research. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most complete reviews of the evolution of theoretical capital asset models.

1. Introduction

(1)

(2)

iiii

i dzdtP

dP

dtcydzWwWdtrrwdW ii

n

ii

n

iffii

11

2. Intertemporal Models

2.1 Merton Model

2.2 Consumption-based Models

2.3 Production-based Models

2. Intertemporal Models 2.1 Merton Model

(i=1, 2,…,n), (3)

where , is the covariance of the return on the ith asset with

the return on the market portfolio and is the expected return on the

market portfolio.

(4)

rr Mii

2/ MiMi iM

M

rrr nMnn

nMiMiniM

nMM

nMiniMii

22 11

2. Intertemporal Models 2.2 Consumption-based Models

(5)

(6)

where is the intertemporal marginal rate of substitution of the investor, also known as the stochastic discount factor.

)(1)( 1,1,, tktittk CURECU

1,1,,

1,1, 1

)(

)()1(1

tktittk

tktit MRE

CU

CURE

)(/)( ,1,1, tktktk CUCUM

2. Intertemporal Models 2.2 Consumption-based Models

(7)

(8)

11,11 ttit MRE

, 1 1

, 1 1 , 1 1

1

1 ,

t i t t

t i t t t t i t t

E R M

E R E M Cov R M

2. Intertemporal Models2.2 Consumption-based Models

(9)

(10)

1

11,1,

,11

tt

ttittit ME

MRCovRE

11,

11

tttf ME

R


(11)

(12)

(13)

11,1,1, ,111 ttittftit MRCovRRE

1

1)( 1

1

tt

t

t XCE

ttttttc SCXCXCU )(),(


(14)

(15)

(16)

t

t

t

t

ttc

ttct S

S

C

C

XCU

XCUM 1111

1 ),(

),(

1101 )( tttt czbbaM

)(1,1 tttmt CWRW


(17)

(18)

(19)

)1(1,1

t

ttm

t

t

W

CR

W

W

tttmt wcarw

111,1

1

)( ,1

kcrwc ititm

i

itt


(20)

(21)

(22)

1

)( ,1

kcrEwc ititm

i

ittt

11

11

1

1 tttt UECU

1,

1

1,

/1

1 11

11 ti

tmt

tt R

RC

CE


(23)

(24)

(25)

1,

/1

11 tmt

tt R

C

CE

imcicmiimmcc

tittmttt

VVVVVV

rErEcE

)1(22

))(1(2

)1(2

1

1log0

22

1,1,1

imicii

tftit VVV

rrE )1(21,1,


(26)

(27)

(28)

1

)(1 ,1

mitm

i

ittt

krEwc

11,11,1,11 1

iitm

itttmttmttt rEErErcEc

ihimictti VVVcrCov 1, 11,


(29)

(30)

11,11,1, )(,

iitm

itttittiih rEErErCovV

ihimii

tftit VVV

rrE )1(21,1,

2. Intertemporal Models2.3 Production-based Models

(31)

(32)

(33)

tt

i

t

idRE

0

1

00

1 ttttt kyiyd

ttt

t kABy


(34)

(35)

(36)

1/ 111

1

tttt kyRE

tt

t cuE

00

ttttttttt sydypsypc 1


(37)

(38)

11111 ttttttttt cuydypEcuyp

ttttttttt ypydypyyR /, 111111

2. Intertemporal Models2.3 Production-based Model

(39)

(40)

(41)

1

/i

ittiti

tt dcucuEp

tt cacu ln

ti

ti

tt ddEp

1/1

2. Intertemporal Models2.3 Production-based Model

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

ttt ddR //1 11

ttt yyR //1 11 t

ttt yy 11

1101 ttt fbzbM


(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

111101 tttt zfbfbM

11,

,,,1

tttttkn

tt kVEnncuMaxkVtt

11 , ttt H

1,, ttttt kknfc


(50)

for all i, (51)

111

11 ,,

tttk

tt knf

M

0,,/, 111111 tttkttkiE

tt knFkVrE

3. Supply-Side Effect Models

3.1 Demand function of capital assets

3.2 Supply function of securities

3.3 Multiperiod Equilibrium Models

3. Supply-Side Effect Models3.1 Demand function of capital assets

(52)

j = 1,…,N, (53)

j = 1,…,N,(54)

}{ 1 tbWehaU

1,,1,1, tjtjtjtj DPPX

1,,1,1,1, tjttjtjttjttj DEPPEXEx


(55)

(56)

(57)

11111 ttttttttt xqPqWrWWEw

1,111111 tqtttttt SqwWwWEWV

)(V2

1t1t Wb

wMax


(58)

(59)

(60)

1111*

21

tttttt qSq

bPrxqWrMax

ttt PrxSbq

111

1

m

kttttt

ktt DEPrPEcSqQ

111

111 *)1(

3. Supply-Side Effect Models3.2 Supply function of securities

(61)

(62)

1,1,1,1, 2

1

tiitititit QAQQDEMin

1,,1

1,

tittiiiti DEPAQ

3. Supply-Side Effect Models3.2 Supply function of securities

(63)

where

11

1

tttit DEBPAQ

11 11

12 21 2

1

, , and

N NN

I QA

I QAA B Q

I QA

3. Supply-Side Effect Models 3.3 Multiperiod Equilibrium Models

(64)

(65)

1*

11

1 1

tttttt DEPrPEcSQ

11

1

tttit DEBPAQ

3. Supply-Side Effect Models 3.3 Multiperiod Equilibrium Models

(66)

(66´)

(67)

1 *1 1 1 1 1

11

1t t t t t t t t t t

t t t t

cS E P E P r P P E D E D

A BP E D V

.

1

1111

11111*

1111

tttt

ttttttttttt

DEPBEA

DEDEPPErPEPEcS

ttttttttt

ttt

VDEDEAcSPEPEcS

PEPBAcSr

11111

1111

111*1

4. International CAPM Without a model showing how assets are priced in a world in which asset

markets are fully integrated, it is impossible to determine whether asset markets are segmented internationally or not. Stulz (1981a) provide an intertemporal model of international asset pricing, which admits differences in consumption opportunity sets across countries. The model shows that the real expected excess return on a risky asset is proportional to the covariance of the return of that asset with changes in the world real consumption rate. It has no barriers to international investment, but it is compatible with empirical facts, which contradict the predictions of earlier models and which seem to imply that asset markets are internationally segmented. Besides, Stulz (1981b) also presents a simple model in which it is costly for domestic investors to hold foreign assets. The implications of the model for the composition of optimal portfolios at home and abroad are derived. It is shown that all foreign assets with a beta larger than some beta plot on either one of two security market lines. Some foreign assets with a beta smaller than are not held by domestic investors even if their expected return is increased slightly.

*

*

4. International CAPMAfter the above two papers, Stulz (1982) examines the conditions under which a

risk premium is incorporated in the forward exchange rate. A new condition for the existence of a risk premium is proposed. He shows that earlier models of the risk premium, which emphasize either the role of net foreign investment or of the relative supplies of “outside” assets, are not suited for assessing the effects of changes in macroeconomic policy. Finally, Stulz (1984) summarizes that how differences across countries of 1) inflation rate, 2) consumption baskets of investors, and 3) investment opportunity sets of investors matter when one applies capital asset pricing models in an international setting. In particular, the fact that countries differ is shown to affect the portfolio held by investors, the equilibrium expected returns of risky assets, and the financial policies of firms. In empirical studies, Chang and Hung (2000) employ a two-factor international equilibrium asset pricing model to examine pricing relationships among the world's five largest equity markets. Their paper suggests that the intertemporal asset pricing model proposed by Campbell (1993) can be used to explain the returns on the five largest stock market indices.

5. Equilibrium Models with Heterogeneity

5.1 Heterogeneous Beliefs and Investors

5.2 Heterogeneous investment horizon

5. Equilibrium Models with Heterogeneity5.1 Heterogeneous Beliefs and Investors

(68)

(69)

1

2

1exp 1,

*1

1

tit

t

tt Var

C

CE

1,*

11*

1 2

)1(

tkt

RAtt cVarMM

6. Dividend and Taxation Effect Models

(70)

(71)

)()( *fiifi rdbrRE

)()( fiifi rdcbarRE

7. Skewness Effect Models

Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Mossin (1966), following the work of Markowitz (1959), develope the first formulations of the mean-variance CAPM. However, many researchers criticize the widely used mean-variance analysis of portfolio selection and argue that assets pricing models should subsume the effects of the higher moments. Borch (1969) contends that any system of upward sloping mean-standard deviation indifference curves can be shown to be inconsistent with the basic axiom of choice under uncertainty. Feldstein (1969) shows that Tobin (1958, 1965) is incorrect in asserting that the μ-σ indifference curves of a risk-averter are convex-downwards whenever the possible investment outcomes are assumed to follow a two-parameter probability distribution. Although Tobin‘s proof is correct for normal distributions, for a number of economically interesting distributions, the indifference curves are not convex, showing that when more than one asset has positive variance, an analysis in terms of only μ and σ is not strictly possible unless utility functions are quadratic or the possible subjective probability distributions are severely restricted. Tsiang (1972) argues that although the mean-standard deviation analysis was at first introduced by Tobin to explain liquidity preference in the sense of an investment demand for cash, in his defense of it against its critics, he actually finds that it is quite incapable of doing what Tobin has expected of it. Furthermore, he claims that the importance of skewness preference for major risk-takers should obviously be taken into consideration in problems of investment incentives.

7. Skewness Effect Models

Therefore, Jean (1971) begins a general extension of the two-parameter analysis to three or more parameters; however, Ingersoll (1975) corrects several errors in Jean’s model (1971) and derives a normative, individual pricing model for risky securities analogous to the capital market line within the framework of a perfect market. Finally, Schweser (1978) clarifies and corrects certain parts of Ingersoll’s correction of Jean’s work.

Although many researchers pay more attention to the skewness effect on capital asset pricing models, Lee (1977) first employs the transformation technique developed by Box and Cox (1964) to determine the true functional form for testing the risk-return relation and to examine the possible impact of the skewness effect on capital asset pricing. According to Sears and Wei (1988) although the estimated coefficient of co-sknewness gives important information on the marginal rate of substitution between skewness preferences, that is independent of the effects of the market risk premium. Moreover, Harvey and Siddique (2000) suggest that if asset returns have systematic skewness, expected returns should include rewards for accepting this risk. They formalized this intuition with an asset pricing model that incorporates conditional skewness. Their results show that conditional skewness helps to explain the cross-sectional variation of expected returns across assets and is significant even when factors based on size and book-to-market are included.

8. Behavioral Finance

(72)

(73)

0

0

)()(

x

x

if

if

w

wxV

/1)1(

)(PP

PPx

/1)1(

)(PP

PPx

9. Liquidity-based Models

(74)

(75)

(76)

it

it

iti

t P

PDR

1

it

iti

t P

Tt

1

it

ii

it

it

iiM

t PS

PDSR

1

)(

9. Liquidity-based Models

(77)

(78)

(79)

it

ii

it

iiM

tPS

TSt

1

)(var

),(cov)(

11

111111 M

tMtt

Mt

Mt

it

itt

tfit

itt tR

tRtRrtRE

)(var

),(cov

)(var

),(cov

)(var

),(cov

)(var

),(cov)()(

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1111

Mt

Mtt

Mt

itt

tMt

Mtt

Mt

itt

t

Mt

Mtt

Mt

itt

tMt

Mtt

Mt

itt

tittf

itt

tR

Rt

tR

tR

tR

tt

tR

RRtErRE

10. Existence of Equilibrium

Hart (1974) argues that in deriving the properties of equilibrium prices, it has been assumed that equilibrium does in fact exist. Surprisingly, no attempt appears to have been made to establish the existence of equilibrium in the basic Lintner-Sharpe model or in more general versions of the model. Yet, the existence of equilibrium is not implied by any of the standard existence theorems because these theorems assume that consumption sets are bounded below. By contrast the assumption that investors can hold securities in unlimited negative amounts implies that consumption sets are unbounded below. In his paper, he finds the conditions for the existence of equilibrium in a very general version of the Lintner-Sharpe model; moreover, Nielsen (1989) presents simple conditions and a simple proof of the existence of equilibrium in asset markets where short-selling is allowed and satiation is possible. Unlike standard non-satiation assumptions, the one used here is weak enough to be reasonable in the mean-variance CAPM and in asset market models where investors maximize expected utility and where total returns to individual assets may be negative.

11. Empirical Tests

Black et al. (1972) and Fama and MacBeth (1973) test the implication of CAPM and find empirical evidence to support the linear relationship between risk and return and efficient market; therefore, their empirical studies support the CAPM. Roll (1977), however, criticizes their empirical results by declaring that (a) no correct and unambiguous test of the theory has appeared in the literature, and (b) there is practically no possibility that such a test can be accomplished in the future. Besides, Cheng and Grauer (1980) also criticize the tests of Black et al. (1972) and Fama and MacBeth (1973) based only on the assumption of constant β and stationarity of the distribution of return; therefore, their paper argues that it makes no sense to attempt a test of the CAPM based on stationarity because the validity of the CAPM over time implies stationarity cannot hold in any but a very degenerate sense. Thus, they find the CAPM generally does poorly in their tests. Finally, Fama and French (1992) conclude that market capitalization (a measure of size) and the ratio of the book to the market value equity should replace beta altogether.

12. Conclusion

We have surveyed the evolution of CAPM from 1964 to 2009. We use both figures and a table to summarize this paper. Figure 1 shows the research flow chart, and Table 1 provides the literature summary. Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Mossin (1966) derive their original static CAPM according to the six critical assumptions. Many scholars have tried to get more generalized asset pricing models by relaxing the assumption to meet the real world situation. Because of the limitation of six critical assumptions and possible model misspecification, we should carefully use the original static CAPM to acquire the required return of an asset and calculate its abnormal return. Fama and French (2004) argue that the CAPM’s empirical problems may reflect theoretical failings, the result of many simplified assumptions; however, they may also be caused by difficulties in implementing valid tests of the model. Fama and French’s empirical research is based only upon the original static CAPM, but we believe that empirical research should not only be based upon the original

static CAPM.

12. Conclusion

In this paper, we have carefully reviewed papers which have extended the original static CAPM. These papers have been classified into (i) Merton’s Intertemporal CAPM, (ii) Consumption-based Intertemporal CAPM, (iii) Production-based Intertemporal CAPM, (iv) CAPM with Supply-side Effect, (v) International Equilibrium CAPM with Heterogeneity Beliefs and Investors, (vi) Equilibrium CAPM with Heterogeneity Investment Horizon, (vii) CAPM with Dividend and Taxation Effect, (viii) CAPM with Skewness Effect, and (ix) Behavioral Finance, and Liquidity-based CAPM. As a result of our review, we believe that some important issues remain for future researchers. Now we discuss these potential important research issues as follows:

First, we can try to subsume behavioral finance into asset pricing models, for example, investor sentiment. Obviously, many noise traders affect stock returns, but we still have no theoretical asset pricing model that includes their behaviors into a pricing factor.

12. Conclusion

Second, we can further explore the supply side of asset pricing models. In the past, there was relatively few literature on the supply side; however, it is important. Holmstrom and Tirole (2001) suggest, for example, new determinants of asset prices, such as the distribution of wealth within the corporate sector and between the corporate sector and the consumers. Also, leverage ratios, capital adequacy requirements, and the composition of saving affect the corporate demand for liquid assets and, thereby, interest rates.

Third, although Fama and French’s (1996) three-factor model has good empirical performance, they acknowledge that there are important limitations in their model. Their empirical results still do not cleanly identify the two consumption-investment state variables of special hedging concern to investors that would provide a neat interpretation of their results in terms of Merton’s (1973) ICAPM or Ross’ (1976) APT. Merton’s (1973) ICAPM not only has a complete and solid theoretical framework but also provides better empirical performance than the static CAPM, such as Fama and French’s (1996) three-factor model if we can find those solid and robust state variables. We suggest that future researchers should pay more attention to how to identify those solid and robust state variables. Moreover, it will make bring Merton’s (1973) ICAPM closer to real world, and its implication will be useful for empirical studies.

Fourth, the relationship between perspective theory and CAPM needs further research in both theoretically and empirically, and especially the relationship between skewness type of CAPM and perspective theory needs to be carefully investigated.

Figure1. Flow Chart

Figure2. The Dynamic CAPM

Figure 3. The Static CAPM

Table 1. Literature Summary

Models Literature Results and Contributions

Intertemporal CAPM－ Merton Model

Merton (1973, Econometrica) Merton (1973) relaxes the single-period assumption to develop the intertemporal CAPM model with stochastic investment opportunities, stating that the expected return on any asset is deduced from a multi-beta version of CAPM in a continuous-time model.

Intertemporal CAPM－ Consumption-based Models

Breeden (1979, Journal of Financial Economics) Breeden (1979) utilizes the same continuous-time economic framework as used by Merton (1973), shows Merton’s multi-beta pricing equation can be collapsed into a single-beta equation. The expected return on any asset is proportional to its beta with respect to aggregate consumption alone.

(1993, American Economic Review) (1993) substitutes consumption out of the model to get a discrete-time version of the intertrmporal CAPM of Merton (1973).

Campbell and Cochrane (1999, Journal of Political Economy) Campbell and Cochrane (1999) present a habit persistence model to explain the dynamic pricing phenomena, that is, using lagged consumption as the state variable to explain the procyclical variation of stock prices, the long-horizon predictable of excess stock returns, and the countercyclical variation of stock market volatility.

Jagannathan and Wang (1996, Journal of Finance) Jagannathan and Wang (1996) argue that the CAPM holds in a conditional sense that betas and the market premium vary over time. They add the labor income to explain the cross-section asset returns.

Lettau and Ludvigson (, Journal of Finance) Lettau and Ludvigson () investigate the power of fluctuations in the log consumption-wealth ratio for forecasting asset returns.

Lettau and Ludvigson (2001b, Journal of Political Economy) Lettau and Ludvigson (2001b) is the first reexamination of a consumption-based factor model, the first recent paper that finds some success in pricing the value premium from a macro-based model. They examine a conditional version of the linear consumption-based CAPM model with time-varying coefficients.

Lewellen and Nagel (2006, Journal of Financial Economics) Lewellen and Nagel (2006) criticize consumption model on the argument that the low covariance between the risk premium and the betas. The covariance between consumption betas and the consumption risk premium obtained from a series of estimates over small time windows is too small to support the importance of any conditional variable.

Balvers and Huang (2009, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) Balvers and Huang (2009) exclude Merton (1973) factors by assuming that there are no changes over time in the exogenous dividend processes, ruling out shifts in the investment opportunities set and conclude that real money growth as an additional factor determine asset returns.

Table 1. (Continued)0Models Literature Results and Contributions

Intertemporal CAPM－ Production-based Models

Balvers, Cosimano, and McDonald (1990, Journal of Finance) Balvers, Cosimano and McDonald (1990) present a general equilibrium theory relating returns on financial assets to macroeconomic fluctuations in a context that is consistent with efficient markets in that no excess-profit opportunities are available. Aggregate output is equal or proportionate to aggregate consumption and that one can evaluate the marginal utility of consumption at the observed level of output so that aggregate output growth becomes the key asset pricing factor.

Cochrane (1991, Journal of Finance) (1996, Journal of Political Economy)

Cochrane (1991, 1996) extend the production-based CAPM by deriving from producer’s first order condition for optimal intertemporal investment demand to describe the asset returns.

Balvers and Huang (2007, Journal of Financial Economics) Balvers and Huang (2007) derive the productivity shocks in the marginal value of capital to obtain an explicit production-based CAPM expression for the asset pricing model.

Supply-Side Effect Models

Black (1976, American Economic Review) Black (1976) examined the effects of disequilibrating shocks on individual behavior in financial markets and the effects of such modified behavior on market outcomes. A short-run dynamic, multi-period capital asset pricing model is constructed by assuming rational expectations and adding the supply side to the static model of capital asset pricing.

Grinols (1984, Journal of Finance) Grinols (1984) extended Merton's intertemporal capital asset pricing model with multiple consumers to include a description of the supply of traded securities.

Lee, Tsai, and Lee (2009, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance) Lee, Tsai, and Lee (2009) first theoretically extend the dynamic, simultaneous CAPM model of Black (1976) to the existence of the supply effect in the asset pricing process. They use price, dividend per share and earnings per share to test the existence of supply effect with domestic stock markets.

International CAPM

Stulz (, Journal of Finance)Stulz (1981b, Journal of Financial Economics)Stulz (1982, Journal of International Economics)Stulz (1984, Journal of International Business Studies)Chang and Hung (2000, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting)

Stulz () provided an intertemporal model of international asset pricing which admits differences in consumption opportunity sets across countries.Stulz (1981b) also presented a simple model in which it is costly for domestic investors to hold foreign assets. The implications of the model for the composition of optimal portfolios at home and abroad are derived.Stulz (1982) examined the conditions under which a risk premium is incorporated in the forward exchange rate.Stulz (1984) summarized that how differences across countries of 1) inflation rate, 2) consumption baskets of investors, and 3) investment opportunity sets of investors matter when one applies capital asset pricing models in an international setting.

Chang and Hung (2000) suggest that the intertemporal asset

pricing model proposed by Campbell (1993) can be used

to explain the returns on the five largest stock market

indices.

Table 1. (Continued)


Equilibrium Models with Heterogeneity Beliefs and Investors

Constantinides (1982, Journal of Business) Constantinides (1982) argue the equilibrium model of a heterogeneous-household, full-information economy under the assumption that the households insure against idiosyncratic income shocks.

Constantinides and Duffie (1996, Journal of Political Economy)

Constantinides and Duffie (1996) construct a discount factor to represent any asset pricing anomalies under the assumption that investors have the same power utility function.

Brav, Constantinides, and Geczy (2002, Journal of Political Economy)

Brav, Constantinides, and Geczy (2002) test the stochastic discount factor given by the equally weighted sum of the household’s marginal rates of substitution to be a valid stochastic discount factor based on the set of Euler equation of household consumption.

Basak (2005, Journal of Banking and Finance) Basak (2005) provides a continuous-time pure-exchange framework to study asset pricing implication of the present of heterogeneous beliefs, within a rational Bayesian setting.

Levy, Levy, and Benita (2006, Journal of Business)Yoel (2009,working paper)

Levy, Levy, and Benita (2006) relax the homogeneous beliefs assumption of CAPM. They employ the mathematical analysis and numerical simulations to study the effect of the introduction of heterogeneity of beliefs on asset prices.Yoel (2009) derives a general equilibrium asset pricing model, low-status investors hold a single high volatility asset in order to move up the status ladder. Since high-status investors are concerned about the risk of losing their status, they demand assets that co-vary with high volatility assets, as a hedge against low-status investors.



Equilibrium Models with Heterogeneity Investment Horizon

Lee (1976, The Review of Economics and Statistics) Lee (1976) first prove the observed function form of CAPM can become nonlinear and show that either the likelihood ratio method or constant elasticity of substitution function methods can employed to improve the explanatory power of CAPM.

Levhari and Levy (1977, The Review of Economics and Statistics) Levhari and Levy (1977) investigate the empirical implications of heterogeneous investment horizons.

Lee, Wu, and Wei (1990, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) Lee, Wu, and Wei (1990) examine the effect of heterogeneous investment horizons on the functional form of capital asset pricing and suggest a translog model for estimating the relation between risk and return.

Dividend and Taxation Effect Models

Miller and Modigliani (1961,Journal of Business)Brennan (1970, National Tax Journal)Black and Scholes (1974,Journal of Financial Economics)Sasson and Kolodny (1976, The Review of Economics and Statistics)Miller and Scholes (1978,Journal of Financial Economics)

Miller and Modigliani (1961) present a cogent argument for the fact that the value of the firm is unaffected by dividend policy in a world without tax or transaction costs.Brennan (1970) first propose an extended form of the single period CAPM model that accounted for the differential taxation of dividends over capital gains.Black and Sholes (1974) suggest that it is not possible to demonstrate, using the best available empirical methods, that the expected returns on high yield common stock differ from the expected returns on low yield common stocks either before or after taxes.Sasson and Kolodny (1976) argue that once a security's beta coefficient is given, the CAPM implies that knowledge of a firm's dividend policy is of no use in assessing the security's return, or correspondingly, its market value. However, they provide the evidence in their paper against this premise.

Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1979, Journal of Financial Economics)Morgan (1982,The Journal of Finance)Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1982,The Journal of Finance)Hagiwara and Herce (1997, The American Economic Review)

Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1979) extend the model of Brennan (1970) to account for restrictions on investors’ borrowing. The model is the standard two-parameter pricing models adjusted for differential taxation of dividends and interest income relative to capital gains.Morgan (1982) summarize three distinct views of the importance of dividends to investors have received support at one time or another. According to the two most important views, dividends have a neutral and a negative effect on security prices respectively. Miller and Modigliani(1961) and Miller and Scholes (1978) favor complete substitutability of dividends and capital gain. Brennan (1970) and Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1979) have developed models which incorporate differential taxation of income and capital gain.Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1982) present some new empirical results to show that there is a positive and non-linear relationship between common stock returns and expected dividend yield. The prediction rule for expected dividends is based solely on information that would have been available to the investor ex-ante.Hagiwara and Herce (1997) consider dividend-based and consumption-based capital asset pricing models. Their estimation results suggest that the dividend asset pricing model provides a better explanation of the data than the consumption asset pricing model.



Skewness Effect Models

Borch (1969, Review of Economics Studies) Borch (1969) contended that any system of upward sloping mean-standard deviation indifference curves can be shown to be inconsistent with the basic axiom of choice under uncertainty.

Feldstein (1969, Review of Economics Studies) Feldstein (1969) showed that Tobin (1958, 1965) was incorrect in asserting that the μ-σ indifference curves of a risk-averter are convex-downwards whenever the possible investment outcomes are assumed to follow a two-parameter probability distribution. Although Tobin's proof is correct for normal distributions, for a number of economically interesting distributions the indifference curves are not convex shows that when more than one asset has positive variance, an analysis in terms of only μ and σ is not strictly possible unless utility functions are quadratic or the possible subjective probability distributions are severely restricted.

Jean (1971, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) Jean (1971) began a general extension of the two-parameter analysis to three or more parameters.

Schweser (1978, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) Ingersoll (1975) developed a normative multidimensional security pricing model for individual investor in which he corrected errors in an earlier attempt by Jean (1971) at developing such a model. Schweser (1978) clarified and corrected certain parts of Ingersoll’s correction of Jean’s work.

Sears and Wei (1988, The Financial Review) Sears and Wei (1988) indicated that although the estimated coefficient of co-sknewness gives important information on the marginal rate of substitution between skewness preferences that is independent of the effects of the market risk premium.

Harvey and Siddique (2000, Journal of Finance) Harvey and Siddique (2000) suggested that if asset returns have systematic skewness, expected returns should include rewards for accepting this risk. They formalized an asset pricing model that incorporates conditional skewness. Their results showed that conditional skewness helps to explain the cross-sectional variation of expected returns across assets and is significant even when factors based on size and book-to-market are included.

Table 1. (Continued)Models Literature Results and Contributions

Behavioral Finance

Kahneman and Tversky (1979, Econometrica) Kahneman and Tversky (1979) developed the prospect theory to describe that people behave more in accordance with a psychologically based theory rather than seek to maximize the expected utility.

Tversky and Kahneman (1992, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty)Barberis, Huang and Santos (2001, Quarterly Journal of Economics)Levy, De Giorigi and Hens (2003, Working paper)Levy (2006, Encyclopedia of Finance)Barberis, and Huang (2008, The American Economic Review)

Tversky and Kahneman (1992) modified the prospect theory by using a cumulative distribution function for the domain of gains and losses rather than separate decisions called Cumulative Prospect Theory.

Barberis, Huang and Santos (2001) argue that investors are loss averse over these fluctuations, and the

degree of loss aversion depends on their prior investment performance.

Levy, Giorgi and Hens (2003) show that under the assumption of normally distributed returns, the

cumulative prospect theory is consistent with the CAPM in every financial market equilibrium.

Levy (2006) argue that experimental findings in particular prospect theory and

cumulative prospect theory contradict expected utility theory .

Barberis and Huang (2008)’s main result, derived from a novel equilibrium with nonunique global

optima, is that, in contrast to the prediction of a standard expected utility model, a security's own

skewness can be priced: a positively skewed security can be "overpriced" and can earn a negative

average excess return..

Levy (2010, European Financial Management) Levy suggested that a modified version of mean-variance analysis and the traditional CAPM can be justified in the Cumulative Prospect Theory framework, despite the fact that under the Cumulative Prospect Theory, the expected utility theory is invalid

Liquidity-based Models

Pastor and Stambaugh (2003, Journal of Political Economy) Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) find that stocks whose prices decline when the market gets more illiquid receive compensation in expected returns. Dividing stocks into 10 portfolios based on liquidity betas, the portfolio of high-beta stocks earned more than the portfolio of low beta stocks, after accounting for market, size, and value-growth effects.

Acharya and Pedersen (2005, Journal of Financial Economics) Acharya and Pedersen (2005) performed a similar but more general investigation on four channels for a liquidity premium. Their largest premium is the covariance of liquidity with market return — the chance the stock may get more illiquid if the market goes down.

Empirical Tests

Black, Jensen and Scholes (1972,Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets)

Black, Jensen and Scholes (1972) find the empirical evidence to support the linear relationship between risk and return and efficient market.

Fama and MacBeth (1973, Journal of Political Economy)Cheng and Grauer (1980,The American Economic Review)Fama and French (1992,Journal of Finance)

Fama and MacBeth (1973) improve the methodology of Black, Jensen and Scholes (1972) to provide empirical evidence to support the CAPM.Cheng and Grauer (1980) argue that it makes no sense to attempt a test of the CAPM based on stationarity , since validity of the CAPM over time implies stationarity cannot hold in any but a very degenerate sense. Thus, they find the CAPM generally does poorly in their tests.Fama and French (1992) conclude that market capitalization (a measure of size) and the ratio of the book to the market value equity should replace beta altogether.

Documents

The Evolution of Capital Asset Pricing Models