Post on 06-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
1/6
11/10/11
1
Predicting Betas: Correcting for Mean Reversion
In order to correct for mean reversion Because the average beta is 1
We calculate the following:
2008 Patrick J. Kelly 97
13
1
3
2 += taHistoricBeBetaAdjusted
Estimating beta for illiquid stocks
Assume that the stock is not traded in dates t 1, t2, What would be the prices in the non-traded days?
Same as in the last trading day, thus zero return Large return in the first trading day after the break
Predicted by the market model: Rt =*RM,t In the first trading day after the break, the stocks return will accumulate all
idiosyncratic noise over the non-traded period
Betas will be biased! Dimson (1979): regression including lead and lag values of
the market index
Rj,t =j +l=-l1:l2j,lRM,t+l +j,tTrue beta is a sum of all lead-lag betas: l=-l1:l2j,l
Estimating beta for illiquid stocks
The trade-to-trade approach: Compute stock returns from the last traded day to the next traded
day (if necessary - over 2, 3 or nt days)
Compute market returns for the same periods Run a regression with matched multi-period returns:
Rj,nt =j,nt +jRM,nt +t=0:nt-1j,t How to control for heteroscedasticity?
WLS: the variances are proportional to nt
OLS regression with data divided bynt(Rj,nt / nt) =j*nt +j(RM,nt /nt) + (t=0:nt-1j,t /nt)
What if the stock has a large weight in the index?
Endogeneity problem In the extreme, when the index is dominated by one stock, this
stock will have beta of 1 by construction
In Russia, this is a problem for Gazprom, Lukoil, How to solve it?
Usual way: exclude this stock from the index
Theoretical solution: use IV approach with other blue chips (orindustry indices) as instruments
The evidence
CAPM
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 101
CAPM predictions
should be zero. If not, there may be missing factors.
is the only relevant factor Relation between and returns is linear Over long periods the return on the market is greater than
the risk free return
In general, riskier stocks should earn higher return on average Market portfolio is mean-variance efficient If you cross-sectionally regress on risk premia, estimates
should equal the average market risk premium ()
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 102
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
2/6
11/10/11
2
Related findings- Fama French 1992 - Size and Beta
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 103
4
TJ
oFn
TeI
ARu
PRn
OaASzFPoo
Fm
o Szath,SoSoME(DwthP
Rn
((AJy
1toDm
1 Pooafom
yy
Tb
n
fothsz(MEpc
tmshoan
de
admn
inJoyt(=1
1un
aNsooCANAMEaN
Dsothmth
CCMP
da
rrm
aaototh1szpoo
unthNb
n
Eszde
isuvd
ino1fpooun
p
n
,Boinvd
soemwh
2to5yomhy
ru
(aaae
en
inJoytWeuoyNsothmthC
CMP
da
rrm
toeah
th3b
n
Tewg
mhy
ruothru
n1p
oo
athcca
foJyoyttoJoyt+1
Tp
n
futhfu(Jy
1toDm
1sme
op
n
rufoepoo
T pap
n
O(hainaohtaeathsumothsofm
ar
o
omhy
ru
o thcapomh
ru
othvuwg
poo
oNAMEa(a1N
Dso
Taruithtm
e
aothmhy
ewg
poo
ru
inpTaszoap
oo
ithtm
e
aomhy
aolnMEfosointhp
oo
atheoJoeyw
hMEdmn
inmo
oda
Tanmosopmhfothszp
oo
inthsme
szde
ve
fm
7to1Tanmosofothszpoo
inszde
2a3ibw
1a4athanmfothla7szde
ibw
1a2 TAcumshw
sac
foewg
szde
(ME
poo
TArwshwsac
foe
wg
poo
othsoine:gALwf2f3f4f5f6f7
f8f9HgPAAMo
hy
Ru
(nPA1213121313131212121211
SmME
1517151716151513161514ME2
1212141313161613131311ME3
1211131117121113131207ME4
1212111510131014111309ME5
1213141314141111121110ME6
1110151211121211101010ME7
1009121210111112061307ME8
1110101312120911101009ME9
0909081011101209080805LME
0810091109090810070705
Testing CAPM
Approach 1: time series regressionWe observe the series of returns of the asset and of the market
index
We estimate beta (in-sample) and check whether other variables(const, D/P, P/E, B/M, ) explain remaining time variation in the
assets return
Approach 2: cross-sectional regressionWe check whether observed betas are (linearly) related to stock
returns (as in the Security Market Line)
Time series test
Run time series regression for N assets: Ri,t-RF =i +i(RM,t-RF) +i,t (+iXi,t-1)
Usually, N portfolios Grouped by industry / size / To reduce idiosyncratic variation present in individual stocks
H0:i=0 (i=0) for any i=1,,NThere are no systematic deviations from the return predicted by the
CAPM Assuming that Ri,t ~ IID Normal, estimate by OLS
F-test for the joint significance of and coefficients
Results
Early tests, up to 80s Did not reject CAPM But: betas are unstable over time
Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken (1989) Data: US, 1926-1982, monthly returns of 11 industry portfolios and
VW-CRSP market index For each individual portfolio, standard CAPM is not rejected But the joint test rejects CAPM
CLM (1997, Table 5.3) Data: US, 1965-1994, monthly returns of 10 size portfolios, VW-
CRSP market indexJoint test rejects CAPM, esp. in the earlier part of the sample
period
Fama-French (1993)
Run CAPM regressions using 342 months of data for 25 sizeand book-to-market portfolios
Strongly reject CAPM. F=1.91 with p-value 0.004 2010 Patrick J. Kelly 107
Intuition: Tests of Mean Variance Efficiency
Cochrane (2001, Chapters 2 and 5) shows that any expectedreturn can be related to any mean-variance efficient portfoliolying on the efficient frontier:
This structure suggests a natural test for efficiency:
Test whether is non-zero.This is the basic intuition of most tests of portfolio efficiency
Differences across tests are mostly econometric refinements 2011 Patrick J. Kelly 108
E ri( ) = rf +!i,mv E r mv( )! rf"# $%
E ri( )! rf =!+"i,mv E r mv( )! rf"# $%
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
3/6
11/10/11
3
Test of Mean Variance Efficiency
Gibbons, Ross, Shenken (1989)
Wherefis a return based factor or portfolio return on the mean-variance efficient frontier, ET(f) is the sample mean of the factor,
and(f) the sample standard deviation, Tis the number of
observations,Nis the number of test assets, 1 is the number offactors,is a vector of the intercepts from the N test-asset
regressions, and is the cross test asset residual covariance matrix,such that
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 109
T!N!1
N1+
ET f( )! f( )
"
#$$
%
&''
2(
)
**
+
,
--
!1
.! /!1 ! ~ FN,T!N!1
E !t!!t[ ] = "
Mean of
Cross-sectional tests
Main idea: Ri,t =0 +1i +i,t (+2Xi,t)
H0: asset returns lie on the SMLThe intercept is the risk-free rate: 0 = RFThe slope is the market risk premium:1 = mean(RM-RF) > 0There are no additional effects: 2 = 0
We dont know true betas!We first need to estimate them measurement error Usually, use predicted betas (estimated over thepreviousperiod)
The realized returns may be very different from the expectedreturns (in SML)We need to estimate this cross-sectional regression over many
periods (to measure averageeffect)
Two-stage procedure
Recursive procedure: for each t(e.g., every month), repeat Time-seriesregression over the previous K periods to estimate beta
Ri,t-k= i + iRM,t-k+ i,t-k, for k=1:K Cross-sectional(CS) regression
Ri,t-RF = 0 + 1 i + i,t (+ 2 2i + 3 i)
Fama-MacBeth approach (first in 1973) Running CS regression for each month t, we get the time series of coefficients0,t,1,t,
Compute mean and st. deviation ofs from these time series: No need for s.e. of coefficients in the cross-sectional regressions! Shankens correction for the estimation error in betas
Assuming normal IID returns, t-statistic = Tavg/ ()
Results
Fama-MacBeth (1973): estimate CS regression Ri,t-RF =0 +1i +22i +32,i +i,t
1 > 0: positive effect of beta2 = 0: no non-linear effects of beta3 = 0: no impact of idiosyncratic risk
Cochrane (2001) Sort all NYSE stocks into 10 size deciles, add government and
corporate bonds
Run separate time-series regressions to estimate 12 portfolio betas Regress sample average portfolio returns against estimated betas Compare fitted SML with the one predicted by the CAPM
CAPM does well in explaining stock vs. bond returns, but poorly inexplaining large vs. small-cap stocks Cross-Sectional Approach: Fama-McBeth (1973)
Tests if high beta is associated with high returns and viceversa.
General format:Time-series regressions to get betas for test portfolios
Usually beta sorted porttflios Monthly cross-sectional regressions to test if high beta is associated
with high return
Cochrane (1999) shows that GMM panel regressions areidentical under some assumptions
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 114
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
4/6
11/10/11
4
General FM73 Algorithm
Use monthly data from years 1 through 7 to estimate CAPM Beta1-7 for eachcompany.
Use to rank stocks (rank1-7) into 20 equally sized groups (call portfolios formed onrank1-7 portfolio1-7)
Use monthly data from years 8 through 12 to estimate CAPM Beta8-12 (= ) for eachcompany.
Find the average Beta8-12 and average (equally weighted) return for each Portfolio1-7in each month of year 13 (i.e. letting delisted companies to drop out each month).
Roll one year forward and repeat steps 1-4 till done. Example in step 1 use data from years 2 through 8
For each month run a cross-sectional regression using the average Betas and returnscalculated in step 4.
Collect the time series of the coefficients (s)
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 115
Example from FF92
They look at whether CAPM works. It doesnt.
Here is what they do:The sort stocks by size and by the stocks pre-ranking beta.
Pre-ranking betas: betas are calculated for each stock over the 5 years ofmonthly data preceding (not including) the current year (from t-5 to t-1).
Stocks are sorted by size and then each size portfolio is sorted by the pre-ranking beta.
For each month in year t, calculate equally weighted portfolio returns For each size/pre-ranking-beta portfolio calculate Beta for the entire sample,
including one lag of the value weighted market to correct for non-synchronous
trading.
Assign the betas to each stock i n the portfolio and run monthly cross-sectionalregressions.
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 116
Average Slopes (t-Statistics) from Month-by-Month Regressions of Stock Returns on ,B,Size,Book-to-Market Equity, Leverage, and E/P: July 1963 to December 1990
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 117
A word of caution about tests: Rolls Critique (1977)
If a portfolio against which returns are measured is ex-postefficient, then no security will have abnormal returns
If the portfolio is inefficient then any abnormal return ispossible
If alpha is non-zero is it because the market portfolio is inefficientor is it because there is mispricing?
If returns are linear in Beta, all that proves is that the marketis ex-post efficient
If they are not linear in beta you do not know if it is because themarket is
ex-post inefficient or because there is a missing factor
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 118
Rolls Critique (1977) continued
Only true test if the true market portfolio is ex-post efficient True market portfolios is unobservable. So, good luck.
This critique implies Time-series tests of efficiency are the better tests to show a model
might work
Cross-sectional tests are better to show that the model might not work
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 119
The evidence
ICAPM and APT
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 120
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
5/6
11/10/11
5
What are the factors
Neither APT nor ICAPM are too clear about possiblefactors
ICAPM: factors forecast changes in the investment opportunity setAPT: factors are tradable portfolios that covary with undiversifiable
sources of risk.
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 121
Chen, Roll, Ross (1986): Testing APT or is it ICAPM?
In the US:
Unexpected Inflation Term structure (Long government bonds short) Default premium (High risk corporate bonds long
government bonds)
Growth in Industrial production Consumption Growth Oil prices
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 122
APT only test: Conner and Korajczyk (1993)
Factor Analysis of stock returns Find evidence of 1 to as many as 6 factors
More recent work provides evidence of both market-wideand exchange-specific factors [Goyal, Perignon, and Villa(2008)]
In US 2 factors common to all stock, plus unique (separate) factorsof NASDAQ and NYSE.
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 123
Data Driven Risk Factors
Research has identified portfolios of stock that appear to getextra high returns:
Small firms out perform large firms at least they did 1926 through 1980
Value stocks out perform Glamour/Growth stocks Fama and French developed a three factor model that
includes:
Market Size factor (SMB)Value/Growth factor (HML)
2008 Patrick J. Kelly 124
Size and Book to Market
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 125
446 The Journal of FinanceTable V
Average Monthly Returns on Portfolios Formed on Size andBook-to-Market Equity; Stocks Sorted by ME (Down) and thenBE/ME (Across): July 1963 to December 1990In June of each year t, the NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ stocks that meet the CRSP-COMPUSTAT data requirements are allocated to 10 size portfolios using the NYSE size (ME)breakpoints. The NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ stocks in each size decile are then sortedinto 10 BE/ME portfolios using the book-to-market ratios for year t - 1. BE/ME is the bookvalue of common equity plus balance-sheet deferred taxes for fiscal year t - 1, over marketequity for December of year t - 1. The equal-weighted monthly portfolio returns are thencalculated for July of year t to June of year t + 1.
Average monthly return is the time-series average of the monthly equal-weighted portfolioreturns (in percent).
The All column shows average returns for equal-weighted size decile portfolios. The All rowshows average returns for equal-weighted portfolios of the stocks in each BE/ME group.
Book-to-Market PortfoliosAll Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High
All 1.23 0.64 0.98 1.06 1.17 1.24 1.26 1.39 1.40 1.50 1.63Small-ME 1.47 0.70 1.14 1.20 1.43 1.56 1.51 1.70 1.71 1.82 1.92ME-2 1.22 0.43 1.05 0.96 1.19 1.33 1.19 1.58 1.28 1.43 1.79ME-3 1.22 0.56 0.88 1.23 0.95 1.36 1.30 1.30 1.40 1.54 1.60ME-4 1.19 0.39 0.72 1.06 1.36 1.13 1.21 1.34 1.59 1.51 1.47ME-5 1.24 0.88 0.65 1.08 1.47 1.13 1.43 1.44 1.26 1.52 1.49ME-6 1.15 0.70 0.98 1.14 1.23 0.94 1.27 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.50ME-7 1.07 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.83 0.99 1.13 0.99 1.16 1.10 1.47ME-8 1.08 0.66 1.13 0.91 0.95 0.99 1.01 1.15 1.05 1.29 1.55ME-9 0.95 0.44 0.89 0.92 1.00 1.05 0.93 0.82 1.11 1.04 1.22Large-ME 0.89 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.71 0.79 0.83 0.81 0.96 0.97 1.18
controlling for size, book-to-market equity captures strong variation in aver-age returns, and controlling for book-to-market equity leaves a size effect inaverage returns.B. The Interaction between Size and Book-to-Market Equity
The average of the monthly correlations between the cross-sections ofln(ME) and ln(BE/ME) for individual stocks is - 0.26. The negative correla-tion is also apparent in the average values of ln(ME) and ln(BE/ME) for theportfolios sorted on ME or BE/ME in Tables II and IV. Thus, firms with lowmarket equity are more likely to have poor prospects, resulting in low stockprices and high book-to-market equity. Conversely, large stocks are morelikely to be firms with stronger prospects, higher stock prices, lower book-to-market equity, and lower average stock returns.
The correlation between size and book-to-market equity affects the regres-sions in Table III. Including ln(BE/ME) moves the average slope on ln(ME)from -0.15 (t = -2.58) in the univariate regressions to -0.11 (t = -1.99)in the bivariate regressions. Similarly, including ln(ME) in the regressions
Fama-French Three Factor Model
Market Risk Premium SMB is a portfolio long Small stocks and short large or Big
stocks and is called SMB for Small Minus Big
HML is a portfolio long Value stocks and short Growthstocks
(value stocks are called High book to market stocks, by financeprofessor types and Growth stocks are called Low book tomarket stocks. So, HML is High Minus Low.
2008 Patrick J. Kelly 126
( ) HMLSMBrrErrEiHMLiSMBtMiMti ,,,
][][ ++=
8/3/2019 Extra Slides on Asset Pricing for Day 2
6/6
11/10/11
6
Do the Fama-French Factors Work in the US?Table Ya
lntrrceprs from excess stuck return regressions for 25 stuck purtfulios formed on size and book-to-market equity: July 1963 IO December IYYI,342 months.
Book-to-market equity (HE/ME) quintiles
Sizequinlile
Smal234Uig
Low 2
0.31 0.620.35 0.630.34 0.580.4 1 0.270.34 0.30
t, I(43 4 High Low 2 3 4 High~~
(i) K(r) - W(r) = (I + OI~ERM(I) + dDEF(f) + t$r)0.71 0.80 0.92 0.75 1.73 2.20 2.61 2.870.77 0.75 0.93 0.93 I.91 2.60 2.85 3.030.60 0.73 0.89 I.00 I.9Y 2.28 3.01 3.1 I0.4) 0.69 0.96 1.34 1.01 1.96 2.X8 3.350.25 0.50 0.53 1.35 1.27 1.17 2.36 2.14
(ii) R(r) - RF(r) = u + ~[RM(I) - RF(r)] + ($0sm; - 0.22 0.15 0.30 0.42 0.54 - O.YO 0.73 1.54 2.19 2.532 - 0. IX 0.17 0.36 0.3) 0.53 - 1.00 I.05 2.35 2.7Y 3.013 - 0. I6 0.1s 0.23 0.39 0.50 - 1.12 1.25 1.n2 3.20 3.194 - 0.05 - 0.14 0.12 0.35 0.57 - 0.50 - 1.50 1.20 2.91 3.71Big - 0.04 - 0.07 - 0.07 0.20 0.21 - 0.4Y - 0.95 - 0.70 1.89 1.41
2011 Patrick J. Kelly 127
S I l l ; L l l 0.242 0.523 0.524 0.69Big 0.76
Smnll - 0.342 -0.113 - 0.1 I4 0.09Big 0.21
(iii) X(r) - RF(I) = u + sSMtqr) + hlfML&) + t(r)0.46 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.97 I.92 2.240.58 0.64 0.58 0.64 2.00 2.40 2.760.61 0.52 0.60 0.66 2.00 2.58 2.250.39 0.50 0.62 0.79 2.78 1.55 2.070.52 0.43 0.51 0.44 3.41 2.23 1.84
(iv) K(r) - W(r) = 0 + h[RM(r) - RF(r)] + sSM&I) + h/IML(f) + V(I)- 0.12 - 0.05 0.01 0.00 - 3.16 - 1.47 - 0.73- 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.02 - 1.24 - 0.20 1.04
0.04 - 0.04 0.05 0.05 - 1.42 0.47 - 0.47- 0.22 - 0.08 0.03 0.13 I 07 - 2.65 - 0.99- 0.05 -0.13 - 0.05 - 0.16 3.27 - 0.67 - 1.46
Sm;ill - 0.352 - 0.1 I3 - 0.124 0.0XBig 0.21~~_.___
See footnote under table 9c.
(v) H(l) - RF(f) = u + h[RM(r) - RF(r)] + sSMB(r) + hHML(r) + ntTERM(r) + dDEF(r) + &)- 0. I3 - 0.05 0.0 I 0.00 - 3.24 - 1.58 - 0.79- 0.02 0.0x 0.04 0.02 ~ 1.29 - 0.24 1.10
0.04 - 0.03 0.06 0.05 - 1.45 0.48 - 0.42- 0.22 - 0.08 0.04 0. I 1.04 - 2.67 - 0.94- 0.05 - 0.13 - 0.06 - 0.17 3.29 - 0.72 - 1.46_ ~~~ ~~~~__.~~~.~.
2.52 2.492.61 2.562.66 2.612.51 2.852.20 1.70
0.22 0.140.51 0.340.7 I 0.560.33 I 240.69 - I.41
0.20 0.090.67 0.290.79 0.560.47 1.230.73 - I.51
Though, the GRS Test Marginally rejects.Ooops!
Example with the Fama-French 3 Factor Model
2008 Patrick J. Kelly 128
Factor data are from: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html