The Capital Asset Pricing Model ( CAPM ) . was first developed by William Sharpe ( 1964 ) . and subsequently extended and clarified by John Lintner ( 1965 ) and Fischer Black ( 1972 ) . Four decennaries after the birth of this theoretical account.

CAPM is still accepted as an appropriate technique for measuring fiscal assets and retains an of import topographic point in both academic bookmans and finance practicians. It is used to gauge cost of capital for houses. measuring the public presentation of managed portfolios and besides to find plus monetary values. Since the origin of this theoretical account there have been legion researches and empirical testing to measure the strength and the cogency of the theoretical account. Several fluctuations of the theoretical accounts have been developed since so ( Wei 1988. Stein.

Fama & A ; Gallic 1993. Merton 1973 ) . The Arbitrage Pricing Theory of Capital Asset Pricing formulated by Stephen Ross ( 1976 ) and Richard Roll ( 1980 ) offers a testable option to the CAPM. Both of these plus pricing theories have gone through intense empirical and theoretical examination with multiple researches back uping or rebuting both the theoretical accounts. The intent of this paper is to through empirical observation look into the two viing theories in visible radiation of the US Stock Market in comparatively stable economic times.

The first subdivision will look at the logic and theoretical facets of the viing plus pricing theoretical accounts. The 2nd subdivision analyses and discusses the bing literature and empirical analyses on both the theories. In the 3rd subdivision I explain the information and the proving methods employed to through empirical observation analyze the theories. The 4th subdivision explains the consequences derived from the trials. The last subdivision includes the decision and discusses the bounds and deductions of my research. Section I: CAPM and APTCapital ASSET PRICING MODEL ( CAPM )Sharpe’s ( 1964 ) CAPM is built upon the theoretical account of portfolio pick by Harry Markowitz ( 1959 ) .

Harmonizing to his theory. investors choose “mean-variance-efficient” portfolio. This fundamentally means that they choose portfolios that minimize the discrepancy of portfolio return. given expected return.

and maximise expected return. given discrepancy. In add-on to these premises. the CAPM makes several other cardinal premises. They assume that ( 1 ) all investors are risk averse and looking to maximise wealth in a individual period and can take portfolios entirely on the footing of mean and discrepancy. ( 2 ) revenue enhancements and dealing costs do non be.

( 3 ) all investors have homogenous positions sing the parametric quantities of the joint chance distribution of all security returns. and ( 4 ) all investors can borrow and impart at a risk-free rate of involvement ( Black et al. 1972 ) . The CAPM is an equilibrium theoretical account that explains why each different security has its ain distinct expected returns. It provides a method to quantify the hazard associated with each plus. One cardinal premise of the CAPM is that it assumes that all the diversifiable hazard can be and is eliminated in an efficient ‘market’ portfolio.

An single security’s idiosyncratic hazard will be compensated for by another stock. So the hazard associated with each security is its systemic hazard with the market. This is measured in the CAPM by its beta ( its sensitiveness to the motions in the market ) . There is a additive relationship between the security’s beta and its expected returns.

Formally the CAPM equation can be written as follows ERi= Rf+?i ( ERm- Rf ) ( 1 )Where. ERi = Expected return on the capital plusRf = Risk Free Rate ( Usually of 6 month Treasury measure )?i = beta which is the sensitiveness of the expected extra plus returns to the expected extra market returns. Formally. the market beta of an plus I is the covariance of its return with the market return divided by the discrepancy of the market return. ?i = Cov ( Ri. Rm ) ?2 ( Rm ) ( 2 )Rm = Expected return of the marketA zero beta plus in the CAPM has an expected return equal to the hazard free rate.

The betas can be estimated utilizing assorted statistical and econometric techniques. The three most normally used techniques are the “market model” ( This is the most common one. I will be utilizing this for my testing ) . Scholes-Williams. and Dimson calculators. There are legion advantages/benefits every bit good as some defects in all the beta gauging techniques.

Analyzing that autumn outside the field of this paper but the restriction subdivision looks at the jobs of the different techniques really briefly. In order to compare the two theoretical accounts. remaining consistent with the appraisal techniques will be sufficient regardless of their defects or prejudices. ARBITRAGE Pricing TheoryThe APT is the alternate theoretical account for plus pricing foremost developed by Ross ( 1976 ) .

This is a really appropriate theoretical account as it agrees absolutely with what appears to be the intuition behind the CAPM. It is based on a additive return bring forthing procedure as a first rule. Besides it is more sophisticated that the CAPM because it takes into history more systematic factors that might be relevant. It examines other macroeconomic variables besides the market hazard.

doing this theoretical account more sophisticated. It captures other factors that might hold been ignored by the CAPM. Formally the APT can be stated as follows. rj=Erj+bj1F1+ bj2F2+…+bjnFn+?j ( 3 )Where.

E ( rj ) is the jth asset’s expected return. Fk is a systematic factor ( assumed to hold average nothing ) . bjk is the sensitiveness of the jth plus to factor k. besides called factor burden. and ?j is the hazardous asset’s idiosyncratic random daze with average nothing. The APT provinces that if plus returns follow a factor construction so the following relation exists between expected returns and the factor sensitivenesss: Tocopherol ( rj ) = rf+bj1RP1+bj2RP2+…+bjnRPn ( 4 )Where.

RPk is the hazard premium of the factor. releasing factor is the riskless rateThat is. the expected return of an plus J is a additive map of the assets sensitivities to the n factors. There are two cardinal differences between the APT and the CAPM – “Firstly.

the APT allows more than merely one bring forthing factor ( CAPM allows merely for the market factor ) and secondly. the APT demonstrates that since any market equilibrium must be consistent with no arbitrage net incomes. every equilibrium will be characterized by a additive relationship between each asset’s expected returns and its return’s response amplitudes of burdens on the common factor” ( Roll and Ross 1980 ) . It is of import to observe that the APT is based on three cardinal premises – ( 1 ) Capital markets are absolutely competitory.

( 2 ) Investors ever prefer more wealth to less wealth with certainty. ( 3 ) the stochastic procedure bring forthing plus returns can be represented as a k-factor theoretical account of the signifier specified above in equation 3 ( Reinganum 1981 ) . ( 4 ) persons agree on both the factor coefficients ( beta ) and the expected returns. ( 5 ) equation 3 non merely describes the ex-ante single perceptual experiences of the returns procedure but besides that ex-post returns are described by the same equation ( Roll & A ; Ross 1980 ) .

There are other theoretical differences between the two theoretical accounts but a more thorough theoretical analysis falls outside the range of this paper and is an country of research that has been extensively scrutinized every bit good. SECTION II: LITERATURE REVIEWThere has been legion surveies theoretical and empirical testing on both CAPM and the APT because of its high relevancy in the finance industry. This subdivision is divided into two sub subdivisions – ( a ) Studies on CAPM. ( B ) Studies on APT.

and ( degree Celsius ) Comparative surveies on CAPM Vs APT. The 2nd and the 3rd subdivision intersect with each other. Because APT was developed in response to the CAPM. tonss of trials on APT expression at it from a comparative position.

A. Surveies on CAPMAlthough. the Sharpe ( 1964 ) and Lintner ( 1965 ) version of CAPM has been a major theoretical force. it has non been an empirical.

Most trials of the CAPM are based on three deductions of the relationships between the expected return and the market beta of the security – ( I ) Betas and the expected returns are linearly related and no other variable has explanatory powers. ( two ) beta premium is positive ( this besides implies that higher betas means higher returns ) and ( three ) assets uncorrelated with the market have the same expected returns as the hazard free rate ( Rf ) ( Fama & A ; Gallic 2004 ) . Although the CAPM is challenged by many surveies. the influences of some earlier surveies still remain and the beta is still considered to be an of import variable in the pricing and evaluating of assets ( particularly in the context of an efficient portfolio ) . It is of import to observe here that all the surveies examined below utilizations some kind of portfolio allotment to prove for risk-return relationships.

Fama and Macbeth ( 1973 ) tests the relationship between mean returns and hazard for New York Stock Exchange ( NYSE ) common stocks ( from 1935 – 1968 ) . They employ the “two-parameter” portfolio theoretical account and theoretical accounts of market equilibrium derived from that theoretical account to prove for three chief hypotheses of the CAPM. They test for the relationship between the expected return on a security and its hazard in any efficient portfolio and happen a statistically important positive linear relationship as implied by the theoretical account. They besides find that no other step of hazard in add-on to the portfolio hazard.

consistently affects the expected returns of the security ( beta is the lone explanatory variable ) . And they find via residuary analysis that the risk-return arrested developments are consistent with an efficient capital market – a market where monetary values of securities to the full reflect the available information. Black. Jensen. and Scholes ( 1972 ) supply some extra testing of the theoretical account in the same clip period ( 1926 – 1966 ) for NYSE listed common stocks every bit good.

It corrects some of the old proving jobs by utilizing more powerful time-series proving as opposed to merely cross-sectional trials and finally comes up with a two factor theoretical account utilizing both transverse sectional and time-series proving. They besides modify the original CAPM theoretical account by loosen uping the premise of riskless adoption and loaning chances and therefore beef uping the theoretical account. The decisions and consequences of their trial confirm the positive additive relationship of the beta and the expected returns of the stock but differ with Fama and Macbeth’s decision sing the intercept of the CAPM additive arrested development. Both these surveies provide empirical grounds back uping the CAPM. Since the earlier surveies.

more empirical research has shown how the CAPM does non reasonably represent the hazard return relationship it implies. Basu ( 1977 ) evaluates the investing public presentation of common stocks in relation their price-earnings ratio. He uses the CAPM theoretical account. keeping beta changeless to see if the P/E ratios of the security contribute towards the expected return. He finds that there is a higher return for assets with lower P/E when beta is held changeless.

An deduction of his consequence poses a serious challenge to the cogency of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. Because CAPM says that there is no other hazard nowadays in the stock when it is put in the portfolio ( since all diversifiable hazards are eliminated ) . no other factor besides the market hazard should be present. Basu ( 1977 ) finds that P/E ratios besides influence the monetary value. non merely the market hazard.

The theoretical account fails to wholly qualify the equilibrium risk-return relationship during the period he studied ( NYSE houses from 1956 – 1971 ) . It besides implies that the CAPM might be mis-specified because of the skip of other relevant factors. Cheng and Grauer ( 1980 ) provide an alternate trial to the CAPM. They address the ambiguity in old trials of CAPM ( Roll 1977 ) which chiefly examined the security market line to look at the risk-return relationships by using the Invariance Law trial.

Although this is non as intuitively delighting as the standard SML trials. it addresses the ambiguity jobs with them. Their consequences strongly reject the CAPM on many evidences. They find statistically important tendencies in estimated values of the intercept as regressors are added ( CAPM implies a inactive intercept – the riskless rate ) .

They fail to reject the void hypothesis that the beta is statistically different from nothing in 25 % of the instances. Their new frame work of proving farther challenges the empirical cogency of the CAPM. Reinganum ( 1981 ) further investigates whether securities with different estimated betas consistently experience different mean rates of returns. In his survey. he uses all the three beta appraisal techniques to build his beta ranked portfolios ( market theoretical account. Sholes-Williams.

and the Dimson calculator ) . The restrictions of the beta appraisal methods are discussed in the restrictions subdivision below. The information he looks at is the NYSE common stocks day-to-day and monthly returns from 1935 to 1979. His consequences besides show that there is no positive relationship between the houses or the portfolios’ beta and the average returns on a statistically important degree. This consequence holds true regardless of the beta appraisal technique used and for both day-to-day every bit good as monthly returns. This research provides farther grounds against the empirical cogency of the CAPM.

B. Surveies on APTThere have been a figure of surveies proving the empirical cogency of the APT since its origin. One of the first surveies that tests the APT through empirical observation was by Roll and Ross ( 1982 ) . They look at single securities from 1962 to 1972 listed in the NYSE or American Exchanges. They perform the maximal likeliness factor analysis to find the no. of factors and the corresponding factor analysis.

And so. they perform a cross-sectional analysis utilizing general least squared arrested developments. The cross sectional portion of this testing and portfolio allotments is really similar to most of the trials on CAPM. Their research finds four of import systemic factors influences the return of a peculiar security – ( 1 ) Unanticipated Inflation. ( 2 ) alterations in degrees of industrial production ( 3 ) displacements in hazard premiums. and ( 4 ) motion in the form of the term construction of involvement rates.

They find that betas are statistically important and have explanatory effects on extra returns. This besides through empirical observation proves the additive relationship between the returns and the systemic factors. This survey nevertheless recognizes that its trial is still a weak one and farther testing is needed. T?rsoy.

G?nsel and Rjoub supply some farther empirical trials of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. They examine 13 macroeconomic variables ( factors ) on 11 different industry portfolios of the Istanbul Stock Exchange ( 2000 – 2005 ) to detect the effects of those variables on stock’s returns. They employed the ordinary least square ( OLS ) technique to make this. Although they do non happen strong R2 for any of the portfolios ( R2 ranges from. 19 to. 36 ) .

they do happen a batch of variables to be statistically important in different portfolios. For illustration they find unemployment rates to be important in the portfolios of fabrication of basic metal industry. wood production and furniture. fabric metal merchandises. transit and communicating. Because of the big no.

of variables employed and the incompatibilities in statistical significance of the different betas in different portfolios. this does non state us much about the strength of the APT. Poon and Taylor ( 1991 ) use the same methods employed by Chen. Roll and Ross ( 1986 ) to reconsider their consequences and besides to see if their consequences were applicable to the UK Stocks.

They find that variables similar to those of the Roll and Ross trials do non impact portion monetary values in the UK in the mode described. They conclude that it could be that other macroeconomic variables are at work or the methodological analysis of the trials employed by Ross and Ross is unequal for observing such pricing relationships. They besides note some of import unfavorable judgment about the methodological analysis used by Ross and Roll. First. it challenges the premise that market monetary values assets in a precise. systematic.

additive mode even though the exposure of the stock returns to the macroeconomic factors might non be statistically important. Second. it notes that the two measure arrested development analysis is sensitive to the figure of independent variables in the arrested development – adding more variables consequences in loss of statistical significance of old betas. Third. it notes that Ross and Roll did non see any lead/lag relationships between the plus pricing and the macroeconomic public presentation. Fourthly.

Roll and Ross fail to take any seasonality associated with associated with the industrial production series. This survey provides some empirical grounds that invalidates the Arbitrage Pricing Theory by demoing how the factors found to be relevant and influential in Ross and Roll’s ( 1980 ) survey are non statistically important when applied to the UK Stocks – the betas associated with those macroeconomic factors are statistically undistinguished. Reinganum ( 1980 ) supply some more empirical consequences of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. He argues that a minimal demand for an alternate theoretical account of capital plus pricing ( CAPM ) should be that it explains the empirical anomalousnesss which arise within the sample CAPM.

One such anomaly he observes is when portfolios are formed on the footing of house size ; little houses consistently experience mean rates of returns about 20 % more per twelvemonth than those of big houses. He looks at the stock informations ( NYSE and American Exchanges ) from 1962 to 1978 to look into whether an APT theoretical account can account for the differences in the mean returns between little houses and big houses. He uses a three. four and a five factor theoretical account of APT to carry on these trials and finds that none of those theoretical accounts histories for the empirical anomalousnesss that arise within the CAPM.

However. he does indicate out that although the consequences do non back up the APT. the beginning of mistake can be attributed to other factors. Regardless of that. his trials show that APT is non an equal theoretical account to find the risk-return equilibrium in a statistically important degree.

C. Comparative Studies on APT Vs CAPMBower. Bower & A ; Logue ( 1984 ) expression at the public-service corporation stocks in the NYSE and American Stock exchanges from 1971 to 1979. They used Ross & A ; Roll’s four factors as its systematic influences. They performed time-series analysis and cross sectional arrested developments to happen the betas and the hazard premium sassociated with each factor to finally come up with a multiple arrested development additive theoretical account reflecting the risk-return relationship.

They besides find the market beta and the security market line for the same securities ( CAPM risk-return equation ) . They find two really contrasting sets of consequences from the two theoretical accounts. They found that APT to be a better theoretical account than the CAPM. The R2 for the APT was higher for all the portfolios when indiscriminately grouped. when grouped by industry and when grouped by market beta every bit good.

The unexplained discrepancies were higher for CAPM in all the portfolios every bit good. They besides perform a weak Theil’s U2 and happen the APT’s U2 to be much lower than CAPM ( the lower the U2. the better predictor the theoretical account is ) . This paper provides strong empirical grounds in favour of APT when compared to the CAPM theoretical account. SECTION III: MethodologyDatasThe information I look are all United States informations from 1980 – 1997 ( monthly ) .

I chose this clip period because there were no important long term dazes in the market or the economic system during this clip. The stock market clang of 19th October 1987 is an exclusion but the market recovered comparatively fast and there were no important long term macroeconomic alterations. Besides. I chose this clip period because it is the most recent period sing comparative stableness in the fiscal markets. There was the point com bubble 1997.

recession after 9/11 in 2001 and the fiscal crisis at 2008. A expression at the S & A ; P graph below ( figure 1 ) shall show that. Figure 1: S & A ; P 500 Index ( 1975-2006 )I looked at monthly monetary values and returns for 160 companies from the S & A ; P 500. I use the adjusted information for this intent. I chose adjusted shutting monetary values and non the nominal shutting monetary values because the adjusted shutting monetary value histories for any corporate actions that might alter the monetary value dramatically.

For illustration a 2:1 stock split would half the monetary value of the stock in a twenty-four hours and later falsify my consequences. 16 companies were chosen indiscriminately from each industry groups. The industry groups were Energy. IT.

Industrials. Materials. Utilities. Consumer Discretionary.

Consumer Staples. Financials. Telecommunication. and Healthcare. The other variables were rising prices.

alterations in the term construction of involvement rates. overall industrial production. and hazard premiums for the same clip period. Change in the term construction of involvement rates was the difference between the 10 twelvemonth Treasury Bond and the 6 month T Bill rates. The Hazard Premium was the difference between monthly S & A ; P 500 returns and the 6 month T Bill returns. The beginning of the informations for each variable is listed in table 1.

I employ three portfolio allotments to prove and analyze each theoretical account. The first allotment method will prove the CAPM theoretical account merely. 9 portfolios are constructed harmonizing to the beta. I calculate the market beta for each company utilizing the OLS arrested development method and so rank the companies harmonizing to their beta. Portfolio 1 has the lowest beta and Portfolio 9 has the highest beta. The mean betas for each portfolio can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Portfolio Allotment I Harmonizing to CAPM. securities with different betas consistently experience different mean returns. Higher betas would give higher norm returns ( Reinganum. 1981 ) . This is the relationship I will be proving in the Portfolio Allocation I.

I would anticipate to happen a statistically important positive relationship between beta degrees of the portfolio and the mean returns. The first allotment will non be proving the APT. In Portfolio Allocation II. I constructed 10s industry portfolios.

There are 16 companies in each portfolio. I perform an OLS trial for each portfolio to happen the market betas ( for CAPM ) and betas for the 4 factors of APT. The four factors I chose are rising prices. hazard premium.

industrial production and alterations in term construction of the involvement rate. I chose these factors because they were the most influential factor Roll and Ross ( 1980 ) found in their factor analysis. I looked at the statistical significance of the betas of each factor to see how valid APT was. Finding statistical important betas for APT implies that CAPM is non equal.

This is because harmonizing to CAPM. there is no other systemic hazard besides the market hazard. Or in other words. no other systematic factors affect the monetary values and later the returns of the stock. I besides looked at R squares for both the theoretical accounts to analyze which theoretical account was a better tantrum or which theoretical account explained the discrepancy better. In Portfolio Allocation III.

I constructed 10 random portfolios. Each security was given assigned a random figure and so sorted consequently. I performed the same sorts of proving employed in Portfolio Allocation II and looked at the same variables. This method would assist extinguish any systematic prejudice the industry that the stock belonged to would hold on the stock returns.

This method of portfolio allotment is used in many surveies analyzing the two theoretical accounts ( Reinganum ( 1981 ) . Dhankar ( 2005 ) . Tursoy. Gunsel.

Rjoub ( 2008 ) . Black. Jensen. and Scholes ( 1972 ) ) .

Section IV: ConsequenceA. Portfolio Allocation I ResultsTable 3: Beta Vs. ReturnsThe consequences for the Portfolio Allocation I are displayed in Table 3. 4 and figure 2. Consequences from the arrested development analyzing the relationship between beta and returns are shown in Table 4. Looking at the assorted returns for the portfolios.

there is no peculiar relation between the beta and the returns at first expression. Portfolio 1. which has the lowest beta. has a higher return than Portfolio 8 ( 2nd highest beta ) .

This goes against the logic of CAPM. Table 4: Beta vs Return RegressionTable 4: Beta Vs Returns RegressionThe arrested development besides goes on to demo that there is non statistically important relationship between the beta and their returns as advocated by CAPM. A expression at a simple spread secret plan ( Figure 2 ) besides shows how there is no existent trend/relationship between the beta and the return and if there is one. it is a negative 1.

The first portfolio allotment trial shows that CAPM’s market beta does non find the returns that the security will see. Figure 2: Beta vs. Returns Scatter PlotB. Portfolio Allocation II ResultsConsequences for Portfolio Allocation II are as follows.

Table 5 displays the arrested development consequences for APT. Table 6 displays the arrested development consequences for CAPM and Table 7 displays the R squares for both the theoretical accounts. Table 5: CAPM Consequences for Industry PortfoliosThe CAPM Coefficients ( Betas ) for all the industry are extremely statistically important ( at a 99 % assurance ) . This shows that market has a really important influence on the returns of the stocks.

These consequences support the CAPM and turn out that CAPM passes the empirical trial. However. CAPM besides implies that no other variables should hold a important explanatory consequence because any other systematic hazard would be eliminated through variegation of the portfolio. An illustration here would be helpful to derive an intuitive apprehension of how the diversifiable hazard is eliminated. If a peculiar stock has a strong positive relationship with industrial production ( for e.

g. a steel company ) . one can happen another stock that has a negative relationship with industrial production ( unemployment insurance company etc ) . This will call off out the systemic influence that industrial production might hold on the plus of the monetary value of a peculiar security when it is grouped in the individual portfolio. Looking at the APT consequences ( Table 6 ) .

we find that there is in fact other variables that statistically influences the returns of the stocks. Table 6: Apt Consequences for Industry PortfoliosFor the IT portfolio. the betas for the hazard premium and the industrial production factors are important. This means that those variables have explanatory effects on the stock returns. For the Consumer Staples portfolio. all the factors except rising prices have a statistically important explanatory consequence.

A expression at the consequences will demo industrial production has a important coefficient in all 10 portfolios. hazard premium in all 10 portfolios every bit good. Changes in term construction have a statistically important coefficient in eight out of the 10 portfolios and rising prices in four out of the 10 portfolios. These consequences provide empirical grounds for the cogency of APT.

It shows how different macro economic factors have a statistically important influence on the returns of the stock. An deduction of this consequence is that CAPM is non equal since it finds that there are other sorts of hazard besides the market hazard. I looked at the R squares of the two theoretical accounts to see which theoretical account does a better occupation explicating or accounting for the discrepancies in the return. Table 7 lists the R squared for the different portfolios. Table 7: Roentgen Squares for CAPM and APT Models.

Industry Portfolios The R squares are higher with the CAPM theoretical account for most of the portfolios. This shows that market hazard does capture more hazards built-in in the portfolio than other macro economic variables that were tested. Looking at the R squares by itself would take you to believe that CAPM is a better theoretical account. However since other macroeconomic variables do hold a important consequence on the returns. CAPM is proven to be unequal.

Further deductions of these consequences are discussed in Section V. C. Portfolio Allocation III ResultsConsequences for Portfolio Allocation III are as follows. Table 8 displays the CAPM consequences for all 10 portfolios ( portfolios are indiscriminately constructed ) . Table 9 expressions at the APT consequences for the same set of portfolios and Table 10 shows the R squares utilizing CAPM and APT for all the portfolios.

Table 8: CAPM Consequences for Random Portfolio AllocationThe consequences from the CAPM arrested developments for all 10 portfolios are statistically important at a really high degree ( 99 % ) . These consequences are similar to the 1s found in the industry portfolios. It provides farther grounds that market betas are important even when the industry prejudice is removed. In other words. market hazard is reflected in the returns of the portfolios.

However for CAPM to keep land based on empirical grounds. APT should be shown as statistically undistinguished. There should be no other explanatory variable or no other systematic hazard that affects the returns of the portfolio. The Apt consequences are shown below. Table 9: Apt Results for Random PortfolioAllocation The consequences indicate that industrial production. hazard premium and alterations in term construction have statistically important betas in all the portfolios.

The beta for rising prices is statistically important in four out of the 10 portfolios. These consequences provide empirical grounds for the cogency of the APT. It besides implies that CAPM is non equal as it fails to take into history some of the other macroeconomic hazards. These consequence shows that market hazard is non the lone variable that influences returns as implied by the CAPM. Table 10: Roentgen Squares for CAPM and APT Models. Random Portfolio Allocation The R squared is somewhat higher when CAPM is employed as opposed to the APT.

This consequence is once more congruous with the 1s found in the industrial portfolios. It shows how the market overall explains the discrepancies better than other macroeconomic factor. Looking at the R squares might demo that CAPM is a better theoretical account. However. as mentioned earlier. R squares do non capture the whole image.

Deductions of these consequences are discussed below. Section V: IMPLICATIONS. LIMITATIONS. AND CONCLUSIONA. DeductionThe consequences shown above demonstrate a twosome of things about each theoretical account. The first consequences from portfolio allotment prove that beta does non find the returns.

It provides empirical grounds rebuting the CAPM theory. Although CAPM is falsified in the first trial. the other two trials ( Portfolio Allocation I and II ) show that market hazard is significantly reflected in the plus returns. The proving for APT in these two trials shows that other macroeconomic hazards are besides reflected in the stock return. The two theoretical accounts can non both be right because CAPM says that merely market hazard is apparent in the plus and no other systematic hazard variable exists.

Statistically important betas for APT in both the portfolio allotment trials show that there are other macroeconomic variables that account for the returns of the security. turn outing CAPM inadequate. The better R squares for CAPM shows that market hazards and motions explain the discrepancy in the stock returns better than all the macroeconomic factors in the APT theoretical account. Although it explains the discrepancy better.

it ignores other important hazards present in the stock returns. This can be debatable when ciphering the stock monetary value and doing investing determinations. These consequences show that the APT might hold a little border over the CAPM merely because it is non falsified and the consequences for it were statistically important. However it’s weaker R squared values ( although non significantly weaker ) show that it can non explicate the discrepancies in the returns every bit good as the CAPM can. Fiscal practicians should utilize both the theoretical accounts in junction and non take one over the other. Although my consequences show APT is stronger and CAPM is unequal.

CAPM’s better R sq. and the statistical significance of its betas should non be ignored. B. RestrictionsThere are some restrictions in this whole research 1 must maintain in head. Get the better ofing these restrictions will beef up the research but the consequences of the trials I have done are still valid and supply insightful empirical grounds that has serious and meaningful deductions.

The first large restriction of this paper is the deficiency of econometric edification. For illustration the usage of more complicated theoretical account than the OLS arrested development theoretical account like the GARCH would give more accurate consequences. It would account for the noise nowadays in the fiscal information. Besides for my APT testing. I use Ross & A ; Roll’s ( 1980 ) factors.

I could execute my ain factor analysis to come up with the macroeconomic variables relevant for my informations which would beef up my APT consequences. Again. due to deficiency of my edification in econometrics and Stata. I could non utilize this measure.

However. these macroeconomic factors ( rising prices. industrial production. alterations in term construction.

hazard premiums ) are used in other surveies excessively ( Poon & A ; Taylor. 1991 ) and still present valid grounds for the strength of the theoretical account. Another restriction of my paper is the beta appraisal technique I use. specially for the CAPM theoretical accounts. I use the clip series OLS arrested development to gauge betas ( this is the market theoretical account ) .

Using the market theoretical account calculator might be debatable for day-to-day returns of unsynchronized trading jobs. And if nontrading is a serious job this might take to prejudices in the appraisal which would impact the consequences ( Reinganum. 1981 ) . Other two appraisal methods are However.

even the Scholes Williams calculator might be biased and inconsistent if nontrading is a serious sufficiency job harmonizing to Dimson. Using all three appraisal techniques would hold led me to come to a conclusive reply ; my reply is limited merely to the market theoretical account. The prejudice evident in the market theoretical account gauging technique is present in my consequences and should be eliminated by utilizing these other appraisal method. On a broader position. my research looks at stock market informations for a really specific clip period. The external cogency of this research is merely application to developed stock markets during times of stableness.

The findings of this paper would non be applicable to developing stock markets or when the stock market demonstrates utmost volatility or experiences other sorts of exogenic or endogenous dazes. In the existent universe. markets experience these fluctuations. hence ballads my biggest restriction. There has non been adequate testing of these theoretical accounts for times of crisis and dazes in the fiscal markets. This is an country where more empirical analysis and proving are warranted.

C. Concluding RemarksThe consequences have shown that both theoretical accounts are non perfect. APT is better because it takes into history systematic hazards other than the market hazard as opposed to the CAPM which merely histories for the market hazard. The empirical cogency of the APT refutes the adequateness of CAPM as an plus pricing theoretical account.

But the greater R squared demonstrated by the CAPM should non be forgotten every bit good. The hazard averse and the rational investor would profit utilizing both theoretical accounts and coming to the most sound determination. Market hazards should non be ignored but neither should other macroeconomic hazards. Further research in more realistic market status is needed to see which theoretical account is better for changing market conditions. The pick of the theoretical accounts will hold serious effects for the investor every bit good as for the market as a whole. Possibly.

there will be a theoretical account that incorporates the strength of both these theoretical accounts and eliminates the failings. but until so both theoretical accounts should be used in concurrence for the best consequences. RecognitionsI would wish to thank Professor Tymoigne for supplying my some valuable beginnings and steering me through the procedure of this research. Professor Schleef for assisting me insight. Dilara Zhamakayeva.

Merica Shrestha and Lame Ungwang ( Undergraduate Economics Students ) for assisting me cod and assemble the immense sums of informations. Plants Cited1. Basu. S. . “Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to TheirPrice-Earning Ratios: A Trials of the Efficient Market Hypothesis.

” The Journal of Finance 32. no. 3 ( 1977 ) : 663-682. 2. Black.

Fischer. Michael Jensen. and Myron Scholes. “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Trials by Michael Jensen. Fischer Black ( deceased ) . Myron Scholes.

” Traveling to seek. hypertext transfer protocol: //papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers.

cfm? abstract_id=908569 & A ; rec=1 & A ; srcabs=350100 ( accessed December 4. 2010 ) . 3. Bower. Dorothy H.

. Richard S. Bower. and Dennis E.

Logue. “Arbitrage Pricing Theory and Utility Stock returns. ” The Journal of Finance 39. no. 4 ( 1984 ) : 1041-1054. 4.

Cheng. Pao L. . and Robert R. Grauer. “An Alternate trial of the Capital Asset Pricing Model.

” The American Economic Review 70. no. 4 ( 1980 ) : 660-671. 5. Dhankar. Raj S.

. “Arbitrage Pricing Theory and the Cpital Asset Pricing Model – Evidence from the Indian Stock Market. ” Journal of Financial Management and Analysis 18. no.

1 ( 2005 ) : 14-27. 6. Fama. Eugene. and James MacBeth. “Risk.

Return. and Equilibrium: Empirical Trials. ” The Journal of Political Economy 81. no. 3 ( 1973 ) : 607-636.

7. Fama. Eugene F. . and Kenneth R. French.

“The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence by Eugene Fama. Kenneth French. ” SSRN. hypertext transfer protocol: //papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers.

cfm? abstract_id=440920 & A ; rec=1 & A ; srcabs=2358 ( accessed December 4. 2010 ) . 8. Febrian. Erie. and Aldrin Herwany.

“The Performance of Asset Pricing Models Before. During. and After an Emerging Market Financial Crisi: Evidence from Indonesia. ” The International Journal of Business and Finance Research 4. no.

1 ( 2010 ) : 85-97. 9. Huberman. Gur. and Zhenyu Wang. “Arbitrage Pricing Theory.

” Columbia University. hypertext transfer protocol: //www0. gsb. Columbia. edu/faculty/ghuberman/APT-Huberman-Wang. pdf ( accessed November 1.

2010 ) . 10. Poon. S. .

and S. J. Taylor. “Macroeconomic Factors and the UK Stock Market. ” Journal of Business Finance & A ; Accounting 18.

no. 5 ( 1991 ) : 619-636. 11. Reinganum.

Marc R. . “The Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Some Empirical Results. ” The Journal of Finance 36. no. 2 ( 1980 ) : 313-321.

12. Reinganum. Marc R. . “A New Empirical Perspective on the CAPM. ” diary of fiscal and quantitative analysis 16.

no. 4 ( 1981 ) : 439-462. 13. Roll.

Richard. and Stephen Ross. “An Empirical Investigation of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory. ” The Journal of Finance 35. no. 5 ( 1980 ) : 1073-1101.

14. Roll. Richard. and Stephen Ross.