0 Up votes0 Down votes

467 views5 pagesThe APT is more complicated than the CAPM and its empirical support is weak

Jun 23, 2010

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

The APT is more complicated than the CAPM and its empirical support is weak

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

467 views

The APT is more complicated than the CAPM and its empirical support is weak

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

You are on page 1of 5

All rights reserved

The simplest and most commonly used asset pricing model in finance is a one factor

model called the CAPM. It is 'one factor' in the sense that there is only one

explanatory variable and that variable is the risk premium of the market as a whole.

Its simplicity was attacked by Ross and Roll in the 1970s. Ross (1976) felt that

there must be more than one dimension to asset pricing. Roll (1977) claimed that

the CAPM is not 'theory' since it cannot be refuted or tested. In its place Ross (1976)

and Ross and Roll (1980) proposed a multi-factor model which they called the

arbitrage pricing theory or the APT. Several macro-economic variables are used to

explain asset pricing in this model.

Whereas the CAPM relates stock returns to only the 'market' in the linear equation

Ri = Ro + (Rm-Ro)*B1

where Rm is the market rate of return, the APT model states asset returns as a risk

free return plus a linear combination of factors as :

Ri = Go + (G1-Go)*B1 + (G2-Go)*B2 + .... + (Gn-Go)*Bn

where Go can be interpreted as the risk free rate of return and the (Gi-Go) terms are

risk premia demanded for each class of risk defined by the factors B1 to Bn.

Empirical tests of the APT have been inconclusive because no two researchers could

agree on the number and nature of the exogenous variables or the value of their

coefficients (Chen 1983, Chen, Roll and Ross 1983, Roll and Ross 1980,

Kryzanowski et al 1994).

It has also been shown that the model suffers from a statistical weaknesses.

Kryzanowski et al (1994) show that the explanatory variables are correlated. The

correlation implies that an APT regression model suffers from multi-collinearity and

that it will generate unstable coefficients.

It is necessary in such cases to extract orthogonal factors from the raw factors

before the model can be constructed. The problem is that all efforts to generate

orthogonal factors have resulted in one dominant factor implying that only one

factor is needed as in the CAPM. APT models that retain multiple explanatory

variables, typically five factors are used, are therefore unstable.

The instability of the five-factor regression coefficients for the APT is the likely

reason that researchers cannot agree on their values; and the single dominant factor

problem is the likely reason that no empirical investigation of the APT has produced

results that could be shown to be superior to the CAPM. Thus, the entire APT epoch

in financial research turned out to be a multi-collinearity dead end.

Empirical tests of the APT are characterized by the emotional zeal of the authors and

their universal dislike for the CAPM rather than objective scientific inquiry. The APT

model is seductive and it generates a sense among researchers that they could prove

it to be right if they could only come up with the right kind of statistical magic.

A close look at Chen (1983) reveals these aspects of APT research. Chen, a great fan

of the APT, reports that he was unable to find any evidence that the APT is not valid.

In each case, his null hypothesis was that the APT is valid; and in each case, he was

unable to reject this hypothesis.

He did try establish that the APT was better than the CAPM as a predictor; but the

strongest conclusion he could come up with to support that hypothesis is that "the

APT performs VERY WELL against the CAPM" – in other words that it is just as good.

Chen's APT model was built using five factors - a very common number to use. To

his great credit Chen fixed the predictor variables and number of factors a priori to

avoid 'data dredging', that is, to keep adding predictors and factors until you prove

what it is you are out to prove.

An important difference between CAPM and APT in the regression portion of the

empirical test is that the CAPM does not require a statistically significant

relationship to exist between Ri and Rm. It only seeks to extract whatever covariance

that might exist. In contrast, the APT depends on the existence of statistically

significant correlation. Therefore, the APT model cannot be built if the regression

null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Typically, in APT research, the validity of the linear model is tested with this

hypotheses -

Ho: b1=b2=b3=b4=b5=0

Ha: At least one of the regression weights is non-zero

This is, of course, statistical voodoo. In the APT the entire regression model has to

be correct and valid. Thus the correct hypotheses should be

Ho: at least one of the bi=0 against

Ha: none of the bi=0

Only a rejection of this null hypothesis will lead to the conclusion that the model is

correctly specified - a necessary condition for APT validation.

Each of the regression weights should be tested with a t-test with the appropriate

Bonferonni type adjustment. If any of the weights is not significantly different from

zero, the model is incorrectly specified and the experiment is over. Conclusion; reject

APT.

But even with the slanted hypothesis, the data do not suggest that the null

hypothesis can be rejected. Chen presents the regression weights along with the F-

values but no p-values. I computed the p-values and I find that most of the data do

not support the regression hypothesis at the 5% level even without the multiple

comparison correction.

At this point the author retreats to the 10% level without multiple comparison

correction and pushes on. The t-values computed for each of the 20 regression

weights - 5 predictor variables times 4 periods of study - show that only eight of

these are statistically significant. These statistics do not provide support for the APT

model.

Multiple comparisons require a correction to the alpha value to account for low p-

values that would occur by chance in the null distribution. At an alpha rate of 10%

the probability that all 20 samples will fail to reject Ho is 0.90^20 = 12%. That

means that there is an 88% chance that there will be at least one spurious rejection

of Ho even when the samples are drawn from the Ho distribution. To correct for this

error when making n comparisons and hold the experiment-wide error rate to alpha

the comparison alpha must be reduced so that (1-alpha)^20 =90%. This means that

for an experiment-wide error rate of 10%, the comparison alpha must be made at

1%. This flaw in APT research has not been addressed.

Two of the periods studied (1971-1974 and 1975-1978) actually support a one

parameter hypothesis, the model the study is trying to disprove. One period, 1967-

1970 supports a 2-parameter hypothesis. None of the periods support the 5-

parameter hypothesis. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the APT

linear model is mis-specified.

The author shows that the residuals of the of the single parameter CAPM equation

can be explained by throwing in more predictive variables (as one would expect).

However, he does not apply the same test to his own 5 parameter APT model. Would

addition of a 6th and 7th variable, for instance, reduce his error sum of squares in

the APT? Besides, as previously mentioned, the CAPM model does not rely on a

correctly specified regression model that captures all explainable sum of squares.

An asset's total variance of returns can be partitioned into two parts the systematic

and the diversifiable as long as the linear model is valid (regardless of number of

predictor variables). The regression itself is the process that makes this partition.

There is no reason to believe that the predicted returns of two portfolios will be

different purely on the basis of the difference between the total variance of the assets

unless the linear model is incorrect. And there are better and more easily

interpretable tests for the correctness of the linear model.

In Dybvig and Ross (1985) we find further evidence that research into asset pricing

in this era had deteriorated into open warfare between the CAPM camp and the APT

camp. This paper responds to Shanken's charge that the APT suffers from the same

testability problems that the APT camp uses to attack the CAPM. Although Ross

goes to great lengths to refute Shanken's charge, it is clear that Shanken's attack

has softened Ross's vitriol toward the CAPM. In this paper he takes a rather

generous view of CAPM claiming now, that the CAPM and APT are really compatible

and 'imply' each other. It's just a matter of how many factors we want to use

(CAPM=1 factor, APT=k factors).

But he finally reverts to the Ross and Roll critique of the CAPM viz, that it is not

testable since the 'market portfolio' is not observable. The APT, on the other hand,

does not force the empiricist to define the market but allows him to use any subset

of the market portfolio to validate the model. Ross and Roll thus prevail: the CAPM

is not testable but the APT is.

The problem is that this article does not really respond to the Shanken charge that

there is no reason to believe that the eigenvalues of all subset portfolios will be the

same. The APT camp says, in effect, that if the portfolios are 'sufficiently large' then

the assumption 'is not a bad one'. But as Shanken shows, the definition of

'sufficiently large' suffers from the same empirical difficulty as that of defining the

allegedly unobservable 'market portfolio' in the CAPM.

The bottom line is that whether the CAPM is theoretically sound or not, the APT is

not a suitable substitute for asset pricing because it has no empirical support.

REFERENCES

Chen, N.F, and Ingersoll, E., Exact pricing in linear factor models with finitely many

assets: A note, Journal of Finance June 1983 page 985

Chen, Naifu, Richard Roll, and Stephen Ross, Economic forces and the stock

market: testing the APT and alternate asset pricing theories, Working paper,

December 1983

Chen, Naifu, Some empirical tests of the theory of arbitrage pricing, Journal of

Finance, Dec 1983 pp 1393, p1414

Dybvig, Phillip, and Ross, Stephen, Yes, the APT is Testable, Journal of Finance,

Sep, 1985

Fama, Eugene, and James MacBeth, Risk, return, and equilibrium, Journal of

Political Economy, 1973, 81, p607

Kryzanowski, Lawrence, Simon Lalancette, and Minh Chau To, Some tests of APT

mispricing using mimicking portfolios, Financial Review, v29: 2, p153, May 1994

Roll, Richard, A critique of the asset pricing theory's tests, Journal of Financial

Economics, March 1977, p129

Roll, Richard and Stephen Ross, An empirical investigation of the arbitrage pricing

theory, Journal of Finance, Dec 1980, p1073

Ross, Stephen, The arbitrage theory of capital pricing, Journal of Economic Theory,

v13, p341, 1976

Sharpe, William, A simplified model for porftolio returns, Management Science,

1962, p277

Sharpe, William, Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under

conditions of risk, Journal of Finance, v19, p425, 1964

- UT Dallas Syllabus for pa5313.501.08f taught by Timothy Bray (tmb021000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Effect of Classroom Environment on the Academic AchievementUploaded byAna Arana
- 1 Overview of Areal Data AnalysisUploaded by0acqua0
- Arbitrage Pricing TheoryUploaded byDeepti Pantula
- chp4Uploaded byAdil Farooqui
- UT Dallas Syllabus for pa5313.5u1.09u taught by Timothy Bray (tmb021000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI)Uploaded byinventionjournals
- www_statisticshowto_com_excel_regression_analysis_output_exp.pdfUploaded byRufilthy Imnotfilthy
- WJ_2014_05_s183Uploaded bycdsalazar31
- Linear RegressionUploaded byscribdkim
- gbadamosiUploaded byOloyede Isiaka
- marketing research ppt 1 1Uploaded byapi-292900866
- 8.[77-92]Effects and Consequences of Emphasizing Sectoral Recovery Rate and Sectoral Proportion in Loan Portfolio on Approving New Project Loans of Bangladesh Shilpa BankUploaded byiiste
- Chapter 5.pdfUploaded byMalik Awan
- SPSS.regression.pcUploaded byReet Hansah
- Competitive PrioritiesUploaded bysaraaqil
- Stat270 Assignment 1.docxUploaded byJessica Elizabeth Pickworth
- ECON 10 FinalUploaded byRC Willenbrock
- (714678394) yeyeyeUploaded byfebiasty
- Smith 1940 Specific Gravity LatexUploaded byNidhi Dubey
- Multivariate AnalysisUploaded bypopat vishal
- MTech_IEMUploaded bymanoj1837
- _a2319c001bdcac7a13b60f76fc92aa3a_Correlation-and-Model-Error.xlsxUploaded byANIL PAL
- Counter fUploaded byAlejandra Parra
- Multi Variant RegeressionUploaded byRaef Kobeissi
- CHAPTER-1-1 (1)Uploaded byAmelita Javier
- statisticsUploaded bysayful_islam67_73107
- 2018Uploaded bySumaira Asim
- 8Uploaded byBengt Hörberg
- chi lab docxUploaded byapi-319923127

- History of the global warming scare. Chapter 2, 1985-1990Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Deep Hot Biosphere - Dr Thomas Gold-PNASUploaded byzaroia
- The risk return structure of the credit card industryUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Corruption in state owned utilitiesUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- History of the global warming scare: Chapter 4: 1995 - 2000Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- History of the global warming scare: Chapter 1: 1980 - 1985Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- History of the global warming scare Chapter 5: 2000-2005Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Will global warming wipe out Tibet's glaciers?Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Stock Exchange AutomationUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Portfolio Theory Lecture NotesUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Corruption Case StudyUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Keynes on InvestmentUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Enterprise reform in ChinaUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Dupont AnalysisUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Gap Management 101Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- The economics of artificial job creation: a calculation of the cost of green jobs on the rest of productive activityUploaded bythecynicaleconomist
- The re-unification of IndiaUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- History of the global warming scare: Chapter 3: 1990-1995Uploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Institutional reforms for capital markets in ChinaUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- On the alleged fractal nature of marketsUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- A Framework for MIS Effectiveness ResearchUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Database NormalizationUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- A method for constructing Likert scalesUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- The Kyoto ProtocolUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- The Montreal ProtocolUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Village Life in BangladeshUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Moderate MuslimsUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- The International Aid BusinessUploaded byCha-am Jamal
- Ozone hole news archive: 1987 to 2005Uploaded byCha-am Jamal

- Statistics Cheat Sheet Test 1Uploaded bybookcandy
- Gllamm ManualUploaded byJoanna Zwierzycka
- HMT UNIVERSITY QUESTIONS ME6502 R13 - Unit Wise.pdfUploaded bykannanviknesh086319
- 5UXLawsUploaded byAdrien
- Multiple linear regression modelUploaded byAnonymous 8ooQmMoNs1
- BookerGBondDSparrowLSwan GeometryUploaded byJacquelin Chang
- CMMUploaded bySuvin Ps
- 1999MRRDOC004Uploaded byNam Tran
- GeochemicalModelling.pdfUploaded byAbie Badhurahman
- DPWH Bantay ng lansanganUploaded byGerardo
- The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM) a Dynamic Approach for Predicting Sediment Transport From Fields and Small CatchmentsUploaded byioanciornei
- ModeUploaded byapi-3850829
- Primitive Virtual Negative Charge (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)Uploaded byFausto Intilla
- Uncertainty Principle and Symmetry in MetaphorsUploaded byZhennya Slootskin
- Polar Decomposition Ref.pdfUploaded byNorman Girma
- Stability Analysis_Direct Analysis Method_Staad Pro AISC 360Uploaded bychidsalazar
- 21st.century.manufacturing (Wright)Uploaded bysan moedano
- TheodoliteUploaded bySunil Nepal
- API ChangesUploaded bytronghuynh12
- Road Header 6Uploaded byDamianus SiNaga
- Bergheim -Long-Run Growth Forecasting-Springer (2008)Uploaded byIan Carrasco Tufino
- UT Dallas Syllabus for cgs3342.501.10f taught by Richard Golden (golden)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Optimization of hybrid PV/wind power system for remote telecom stationUploaded bySubodh Paudel
- Very Good Examples SAS Before InterviewUploaded byMrigank Tayal
- Some Weaker Forms of Fuzzy Almost Continuous Mappings on Bulletin of Kerala Mathematics Association, 5(2)(2009, Desecember), pp. 109-113.Uploaded byDr.Hakeem Ahmed Othman
- Multirate Dsp PresentationUploaded byPrashant Nukala
- 4. Motion in Two and Three DimentionsUploaded byfitri dwi hartati
- European Union: List of Dual-use ItemsUploaded byabrahamhyatt
- Encyclopedia of Research Design-Multiple RegressionUploaded byscottleey
- MicrowaveUploaded bySHIREESHA.R

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.