Have we Misinterpreted CAPM for 40 years? A Theoretical Proof
19 Pages Posted: 15 Sep 2004
Date Written: September 15, 2004
Abstract
The validity of CAPM has been contingent on its security market line hypothesis, which asserts that higher-beta-risk assets should carry higher expected returns. Owing to a lack of empirical support for that hypothesis, many have declared CAPM dead. However, by surrogating assets' following-period ex-post returns as asset expected returns, most empirical studies have misinterpreted CAPM. This paper shows that higher-beta-risk assets will not necessarily generate higher or lower ex-post returns and that CAPM is such a common sense theory that one can literally observe its ex-post return paradigms at work in the daily capital marketplace.
Keywords: GCAPM, CAPM, Beta, Modern Finance Theory, Market Efficiency
JEL Classification: G00, G10, G12, G14
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