Testing the Validity of Conditional Four Moment Capital Asset Pricing Model: Empirical Evidence from the Colombo Stock Exchange

Jayaweera M. Nishantha
{"title":"Testing the Validity of Conditional Four Moment Capital Asset Pricing Model: Empirical Evidence from the Colombo Stock Exchange","authors":"Jayaweera M. Nishantha","doi":"10.4038/SS.V48I1.4710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is one of the most used model in finance during the last five decades. This is despite heavy criticism against it along with an ongoing debate among academia about the empirical validity of the model. Three major extensions to the conventional model have been suggested; higher-moment CAPM, multi-factor model and conditional CAPM. All these models have shown mixed results in empirical studies. In the recent past, these extensions are integrated and tested for empirical validity and show some positive results (Vendrame, Tucker & Guermat, 2016). In this study, the empirical validity of conditional four-moment CAPM is tested on the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) of Sri Lanka. Individual stock returns on 74 listed companies covering a 17-year period from 2000 to 2016 are used. A two step procedure is followed with the estimation of the short window time series regressions in the first step, while cross-sectional regressions are estimated in the second step. Test results show inconclusive evidence about the conditional four-moment CAPM. Risk of coskewness is significant though risk of covariance and co-kurtosis are not significant explaining the average return on individual stocks on the CSE during the period under study.","PeriodicalId":362386,"journal":{"name":"Staff Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Staff Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4038/SS.V48I1.4710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is one of the most used model in finance during the last five decades. This is despite heavy criticism against it along with an ongoing debate among academia about the empirical validity of the model. Three major extensions to the conventional model have been suggested; higher-moment CAPM, multi-factor model and conditional CAPM. All these models have shown mixed results in empirical studies. In the recent past, these extensions are integrated and tested for empirical validity and show some positive results (Vendrame, Tucker & Guermat, 2016). In this study, the empirical validity of conditional four-moment CAPM is tested on the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) of Sri Lanka. Individual stock returns on 74 listed companies covering a 17-year period from 2000 to 2016 are used. A two step procedure is followed with the estimation of the short window time series regressions in the first step, while cross-sectional regressions are estimated in the second step. Test results show inconclusive evidence about the conditional four-moment CAPM. Risk of coskewness is significant though risk of covariance and co-kurtosis are not significant explaining the average return on individual stocks on the CSE during the period under study.
条件四时刻资本资产定价模型的有效性检验:来自科伦坡证券交易所的经验证据
资本资产定价模型(CAPM)是近50年来金融领域应用最广泛的模型之一。尽管学术界对该模型的实证有效性进行了激烈的辩论,但它还是受到了严厉的批评。对传统模型提出了三个主要的扩展;高矩CAPM、多因素模型和条件CAPM。所有这些模型在实证研究中都显示出不同的结果。在最近的过去,这些扩展被整合并测试了实证有效性,并显示出一些积极的结果(Vendrame, Tucker & Guermat, 2016)。本文在斯里兰卡科伦坡证券交易所(CSE)对条件四矩CAPM的实证有效性进行了检验。本文采用了74家上市公司2000年至2016年17年间的个股回报率。第一步对短窗口时间序列进行估计,第二步对截面回归进行估计。实验结果表明,条件四矩CAPM存在不确定性。协方差和共峰度的风险并不显著,但协方差和共峰度的风险并不显著,解释了在研究期间CSE个股的平均收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信