The Conditional CAPM Does Not Explain Asset-Pricing Anomalies
42 Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2004
There are 2 versions of this paper
The Conditional CAPM Does Not Explain Asset-Pricing Anomalies
Date Written: January 2004
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that the conditional CAPM might hold, period-by-period, and that time-varying betas can explain the failures of the simple, unconditional CAPM. We argue, however, that variation in betas and expected returns would have to be implausibly large to explain important asset-pricing anomalies, like book-to-market and momentum. We test this conjecture by directly estimating conditional alphas and betas from short-window regressions, avoiding the need to specify conditioning information. The tests show, consistent with our analytical results, that the conditional CAPM performs nearly as poorly as the unconditional CAPM.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Consumption, Aggregate Wealth and Expected Stock Returns
By Martin Lettau and Sydney C. Ludvigson
-
Risks for the Long Run: A Potential Resolution of Asset Pricing Puzzles
By Ravi Bansal and Amir Yaron
-
Dividend Yields and Expected Stock Returns: Alternative Procedures for Interference and Measurement
-
Resurrecting the (C)Capm: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk Premia are Time-Varying
By Martin Lettau and Sydney C. Ludvigson
-
Stock Return Predictability: Is it There?
By Geert Bekaert and Andrew Ang
-
Stock Return Predictability: Is it There?
By Geert Bekaert and Andrew Ang
-
Resurrecting the (C)Capm: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk Premia Wre Time-Varying
By Martin Lettau and Sydney C. Ludvigson