Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Journal of
8
18
How the U.S. Army Analyzes and Copes with Uncertainty and Risk
34
41
50
59
How Corporate Diversity and Size Influence Spinoffs and Other Breakups
69
77
85
94
104
113
(2)
(3)
which is the usual way to express the CAPM. Note that this
expression yields both the required return and the expected
return for a given asset. This is the case because, in the equilibrium assumed by this model, whenever these two returns
are different, prices are assumed to adjust to restore the equality. For example, if investors require a 10% annual return
from an asset but expect it to yield 15%, buying pressure is
expected to drive the assets price up and its expected return
down. Conversely, if investors expect this asset to yield only
5%, selling pressure is expected to push the assets price down
and its expected return up. In both cases, the adjustment is
expected to continue until the required and the expected
return are the same.
The intuition behind expression (3) is straightforward.
The CAPM suggests that investors should require compensation for the expected loss of purchasing power and for bearing
risk. And it specifies that the compensation for risk should
be measured by the risk premium required for investing in
* This article draws heavily from Chapter 8 of my book The FT Guide to Understanding Finance, FT Prentice Hall, 2011. I would like to thank Mark Kritzman and Jack
Rader for their comments. Gabriela Giannattasio provided valuable research assistance.
The views expressed below and any errors that may remain are entirely my own.
1. Over 70-80% of practitioners claim to use this model to estimate the cost of eq-
uity; see Robert Bruner, Kenneth Eades, Robert Harris, and Robert Higgins (1998), Best
Practices in Estimating the Cost of Capital: Survey and Synthesis, Financial Practice
and Education, Spring/Summer, 13-28, and John Graham and Campbell Harvey (2001),
The Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: Evidence from the Field, Journal of
Financial Economics, 60, 187-243.
(1)
77
2. One of the earliest analysis of the relationship between size and stock returns is in
Rolf Banz (1981), The Relationship Between Return and Market Value of Common
Stocks, Journal of Financial Economics, 9, 3-18.
3. Although value investing has a very long history, one of the earliest formal analysis
of the relationship between cheapness and stock returns is in Sanjoy Basu (1983), The
Relationship Between Earnings Yield, Market Value, and Return for NYSE Common
Stocks: Further Evidence, Journal of Financial Economics, 12, 129-156.
4. See Cliff Asness, John Liew, and Ross Stevens (1997), Parallels Between the
Cross-Sectional Predictability of Stock and Country Returns, Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring, 79-87.
78
(4)
79
MRP
SMB
HM
Year
MRP
SMB
HML
1990
13.8
14.4
10.6
2000
16.7
5.7
21.4
1991
29.1
16.5
15.1
2001
14.8
28.4
27.2
1992
6.4
7.8
23.1
2002
22.9
4.4
3.7
1993
8.4
7.5
17.0
2003
30.7
28.1
15.1
1994
4.1
0.4
0.1
2004
10.7
6.3
13.2
1995
31.0
6.9
3.5
2005
3.2
2.7
3.7
1996
16.3
1.9
0.2
2006
10.6
1.0
11.9
1997
26.1
3.7
11.1
2007
0.8
7.0
21.6
1998
19.4
23.3
15.0
2008
38.4
0.2
9.1
1999
20.2
11.7
39.4
23.7
2009
29.1
17.7
AM (1927-2009)
8.1
3.8
4.4
GM (1927-2009)
5.9
2.9
3.3
(6)
7. The theory is also silent about whether we should use an arithmetic or a geometric
average. This is one of the many tricky issues that practitioners face when implementing
both the CAPM and the 3FM.
8. Again theory is of little help in determining the frequency of the data (daily, weekly,
monthly) and how far back we need to go when estimating these betas. Using five years
of monthly data is a widely accepted (though by no means the only) alternative.
80
iS
iV
3M
0.66
0.05
0.18
8.5%
0.76
8.4%
0.2%
Alcoa
2.11
0.69
0.38
17.1%
2.10
16.3%
0.8%
American Express
1.15
0.38
1.79
17.7%
2.08
16.2%
1.5%
AT&T
0.82
0.23
0.23
7.3%
0.66
7.8%
0.5%
Bank of America
1.55
1.15
2.20
17.1%
2.30
17.5%
0.4%
Boeing
1.21
0.64
0.44
10.7%
1.26
11.3%
0.7%
Caterpillar
1.67
0.00
0.25
14.6%
1.78
14.4%
0.1%
Chevron
0.96
0.58
0.44
6.5%
0.62
7.5%
1.1%
Cisco Systems
1.20
0.67
0.31
11.8%
1.22
11.1%
0.8%
Coca-Cola
0.75
0.72
0.01
6.2%
0.56
7.2%
1.0%
DuPont
1.10
0.18
0.67
12.1%
1.37
12.0%
0.1%
Exxon Mobil
0.72
0.70
0.30
5.2%
0.41
6.3%
1.2%
General Electric
1.21
0.36
0.79
12.6%
1.49
12.7%
0.1%
Hewlett-Packard
1.03
0.48
0.26
10.5%
1.02
9.9%
0.5%
Home Depot
0.38
0.55
0.41
9.1%
0.71
8.1%
1.0%
Intel
1.45
0.09
0.58
10.3%
1.16
10.7%
0.5%
IBM
0.81
0.36
0.18
9.1%
0.81
8.7%
0.4%
0.60
0.51
0.09
6.3%
0.52
7.0%
0.7%
JPMorgan Chase
0.45
0.50
1.51
10.2%
1.04
10.0%
0.1%
Kraft Foods
0.46
0.17
0.29
7.1%
0.56
7.2%
0.1%
McDonalds
0.86
0.58
0.25
6.5%
0.60
7.4%
1.0%
Merck
1.36
0.89
0.55
7.5%
0.88
9.1%
1.6%
Microsoft
1.09
0.04
0.30
9.2%
0.94
9.4%
0.2%
Pfizer
0.71
0.68
0.38
7.4%
0.72
8.2%
0.8%
0.61
0.27
0.04
6.9%
0.56
7.2%
0.4%
Travelers
0.71
0.51
0.12
7.0%
0.64
7.7%
0.7%
United Technologies
0.87
0.32
0.32
9.2%
0.95
9.5%
0.3%
Verizon Communications
0.87
0.30
0.43
6.8%
0.60
7.4%
0.7%
Wal-Mart
0.30
0.41
0.09
4.8%
0.24
5.3%
0.5%
Walt Disney
0.89
0.12
0.35
10.7%
1.08
10.3%
0.4%
Min
0.30
1.15
0.58
4.8%
0.24
5.3%
1.6%
Max
2.11
0.69
2.20
17.7%
2.30
17.5%
1.5%
Avg
0.95
0.22
0.19
9.5%
0.99
9.7%
0.2%
Company
3FM
CAPM
Diff
81
Coefficient
0.012
0.712
p-value
0.000
0.000
Coefficient
0.011
0.807
0.246
0.316
p-value
0.001
0.000
0.028
0.001
Model
Adj- dj-R2
0.235
(7)
83
84
An Assessment
Ever since the CAPM was introduced in the 1960s, many
competing models have been proposed to replace it. But at
present, the CAPM remains the standard model used by
academics and practitioners to estimate required returns. That
being said, the 3FM has become an increasingly accepted
alternative in both corporate finance and portfolio management applications, particularly the latter.
The CAPM makes the strong statement that the only
variable that should have an impact on an assets required
return is the assets beta. However, evidence from both the
U.S. and other countries quite clearly shows that size and
value do matter; that is, in the long term, small stocks tend to
outperform large stocks, and value stocks tend to outperform
growth stocks. Under the assumption that size and value are
risk factors, the 3FM articulates the market risk premium, the
size premium, and the value premium into a model that aims
to assess risk in a more comprehensive way, and ultimately to
provide a more reliable estimation of required returns.
Although its popularity has been steadily increasing over
time, the jury is still out on whether the 3FM is a better model
than the CAPM in the sense of estimating more accurate
required returns. Be that as it may, practitioners should be
aware of, understand, and know how to apply the 3FM. There
is little doubt that this model has become an important tool
in any practitioners toolkit.
javier estrada is Professor of Finance at the IESE Business School
in Barcelona.
This journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit www.wileyonlinelibrary.com to search the articles and register for table of contents e-mail
alerts.
Access to this journal is available free online within institutions in the developing world through the AGORA initiative with the FAO, the HINARI initiative
with the WHO and the OARE initiative with UNEP. For information, visit
www.aginternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.oarescience.org, www.oarescience.org
Wileys Corporate Citizenship initiative seeks to address the environmental,
social, economic, and ethical challenges faced in our business and which are
important to our diverse stakeholder groups. We have made a long-term commitment to standardize and improve our efforts around the world to reduce
our carbon footprint. Follow our progress at www.wiley.com/go/citizenship
Abstracting and Indexing Services
The Journal is indexed by Accounting and Tax Index, Emerald Management
Reviews (Online Edition), Environmental Science and Pollution Management,
Risk Abstracts (Online Edition), and Banking Information Index.
Disclaimer The Publisher, Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and the Editor
cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from
the use of information contained in this journal. The views and opinions
expressed in this journal do not necessarily represent those of the
Publisher, Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and Editor, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the Publisher,
Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and Editor of the products advertised. No person
should purchase or sell any security or asset in reliance on any information in
this journal.
Morgan Stanley is a full-service financial services company active in
the securities, investment management, and credit services businesses.
Morgan Stanley may have and may seek to have business relationships with
any person or company named in this journal.
Copyright 2011 Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Authorization to photocopy items for internal and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with their local Reproduction Rights Organization (RRO), e.g. Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA (www.copyright.com), provided
the appropriate fee is paid directly to the RRO. This consent does not extend
to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works or for resale.
Special requests should be addressed to: permissionsuk@wiley.com.
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.