Essay regarding Testing the Capital Asset Charges Model plus the Fama-French Three-Factor Model

Tests the Capital Asset Pricing Style and the Fama-French Three-Factor Style

Screening the Capital Property Pricing Style

And the Fama-French Three-Factor Version

By Jiaxin Ling (Cindy) March nineteen, 2013

Keywords and phrases: Asset Pricing, Statistical Strategies, CAPM, Fama-French Three-Factor Style


This kind of paper investigates the Capital Asset Pricing Model(CAPM) and the Fama-French three-factor model(FF) and the Fama-MacBeth model(FM) intended for the 201211 CRSP databases using month to month returns from 25 portfolios for two periods ---July 1931 to June 2012 and This summer 1631 to June 2012. The theory's prediction is that the intercept should equal to absolutely no the incline should be the extra return out there portfolio. The findings of the study are certainly not substantiating the theory's declare for the fact that in a few portfolios the alpha can be statistically significant with not zero benefit and in several regression versions, the incline is certainly not statistically significant.

1 . The BJS time-series test in the CAPM

Dark, Jensen and Scholes introduced a time series test of CAPM which is based on time series regression of the portfolio's excess return on excessive market return. [pic] (2)

The intercept is known as Jensen's alpha, the industry coefficient that is proportional towards the excess come back of a collection over their expected returning, for its expected risk while measured simply by beta. Hence, alpha is determined by the fundamental values of the business in contrast to beta, which procedures the go back due to its unpredictability. If CAPM holds, by definition the intercept of most portfolios (Jensen's alpha) will be zero. Likewise note that, in the event the alpha is usually negative, then the portfolio underperforms the market. Table One shows the approximated alpha rapport and the g values. Sample size for the regression is 972 for time period one and 588 pertaining to time period two respectively and period two is a bass speaker period of period one. The next conclusions could be drawn from the table a single and two available in appendix:

1) In period one particular, all approximated alphas are non no ranging from -0. 53(portfolio 1) to zero. 57 (portfolio 5). Six out of twenty-five will be negative which implies that these portfolios cannot reach the anticipated return of market level. Twelve of twenty-five include p benefit smaller than zero. 05 which in turn implies in those cases, it rejects the null hypothesis of zero leader. The effects of additional thirteen portfolios confirm that the intercept can be statistically unimportant upholding the CAPM theory that alpha dog is absolutely no. 2) In period two, most of puissance are confident yet 5 out of 25 are negative, which indicates that they underperform the market. Besides, it is observed that the l value of alpha in fourteen portfolios is smaller than 0. 05 which signifies that it rejects the null hypothesis of zero alpha dog. Similarly, the results from the intercepts of the remaining 10 portfolios reveal that it simply cannot reject the hypothesis of zero alpha dog.

Also in Table one particular and Desk 2, interesting remarks may be derived from this evidence based on the believed beta coefficients and their g values: 1) In time period one, bulk portfolios have beta bigger than 1, signifies that the return of those portfolios tends to be even more volatile than the market level. All betas are statistically significant (p value less than 0. 05). In CAPM, it remarks that higher systematic risk (beta) could lead to higher level of return. Nevertheless , in this study, higher predicted beta portfolios are not linked to higher extra returns. Profile one for example , has the maximum beta (1. 65) with -0. 53 excess go back. In contrast, profile 13 has relatively lower beta (1. 17). However it produces a higher and great excess returning (0. 24).

2) In time period two, betas are statistically significant. Portfolio 4 has an believed beta in the unit benefit which indicates it has similar volatility because the market, additional 17 having a superior to 1, which as a result has a bigger volatility than the market. Similarly, in this case, larger estimated beta is not really correlated to raised...