Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
uncertainty in the future inflation rate. Its risk premium may fall as a result of
investors extra demand for this asset.
Risk premiums of individual securities should reflect their sensitivities to
changes in extra-market risk factors just as their betas on the market index
determine their risk premiums in the simple CAPM. When securities can be
used to hedge these factors, the resulting hedging demands will make the SML
multifactor, with each risk source that can be hedged adding an additional
factor to the SML. Risk factors can be represented either by returns on these
hedge portfolios (just as the index portfolio represents the market factor), or
more directly by changes in the risk factors themselves, for example, changes
in interest rates or inflation.
Factor Models of Security Returns.
We begin with a familiar single-factor model like the one introduced in Chapter
8. Uncertainty in asset returns has two sources: a common or macroeconomic
factor and firmspecific events. The common factor is constructed to have zero
expected value, because we use it to measure new information concerning the
macroeconomy, which, by definition, has zero expected value.
If we call F the deviation of the common factor from its expected value, b i the
sensitivity of firm i to that factor, and e i the firm-specific disturbance, the
factor model states that the actual excess return on firm i will equal its initially
expected value plus a (zero expected value) random amount attributable to
unanticipated economywide events, plus another (zero expected value)
random amount attributable to firm-specific events.
Formally, the single-factor model of excess returns is described by Equation
10.1:
where E ( R i ) is the expected excess return on stock i. Notice that if the macro
factor has a value of 0 in any particular period (i.e., no macro surprises), the
excess return on the security will equal its previously expected value, E ( R i ),
plus the effect of firm-specific events only. The nonsystematic components of
returns, the e i s, are assumed to be uncorrelated across stocks and with the
factor F.
Example 10.1 Factor Models.
To make the factor model more concrete, consider an example. Suppose that
the macro factor, F, is taken to be news about the state of the business cycle,
measured by the unexpected percentage change in gross domestic product
(GDP), and that the consensus is that GDP will increase by 4% this year.
Suppose also that a stocks b( beta) value is 1.2.
If GDP increases by only 3%, then the value of F would be 2 1%, representing a
1% disappointment in actual growth versus expected growth. Given the stocks
beta value, this disappointment would translate into a return on the stock that
is 1.2% lower than previously expected. This macro surprise, together with the
firm-specific disturbance, e i , determines the total departure of the stocks
return from its originally expected value.
The two macro factors on the right-hand side of the equation comprise the
systematic factors in the economy. As in the single-factor model, both of these
macro factors have zero expectation: They represent changes in these
variables that have not already been anticipated. The coefficients of each
factor in Equation 10.2 measure the sensitivity of share returns to that factor.
For this reason the coefficients are sometimes called factor loadings or,
equivalently, factor betas. An increase in interest rates is bad news for most
firms, so we would expect interest rate betas generally to be negative. As
before, e i reflects firmspecific influences.
To illustrate the advantages of multifactor models, consider two firms, one a
regulated electric-power utility in a mostly residential area, the other an airline.
Because residential demand for electricity is not very sensitive to the business
cycle, the utility has a low beta on GDP. But the utilitys stock price may have a
relatively high sensitivity to interest rates.
Because the cash flow generated by the utility is relatively stable, its present
value behaves much like that of a bond, varying inversely with interest rates.
Conversely, the performance of the airline is very sensitive to economic activity
but is less sensitive to interest rates. It will have a high GDP beta and a lower
interest rate beta. Suppose that on a particular day, a
news item suggests that the economy will expand. GDP is expected to
increase, but so are interest rates. Is the macro news on this day good or
bad? For the utility, this is bad news: Its dominant sensitivity is to rates. But for
the airline, which responds more to GDP, this is good news. Clearly a one-factor
or single-index model cannot capture such differential responses to varying
sources of macroeconomic uncertainty..
Example 10.2 Risk Assessment Using Multifactor Models.
Suppose we estimate the two-factor model in Equation 10.2 for Northeast
Airlines and find the following result:
This tells us that, based on currently available information, the expected excess
rate of return for Northeast is 13.3%, but that for every percentage point
increase in GDP beyond current expectations, the return on Northeast shares
increases on average by 1.2%, while for every unanticipated percentage point
that interest rates increases, Northeasts shares fall on average by .3%.
Factor betas can provide a framework for a hedging strategy. The idea for an
investor who wishes to hedge a source of risk is to establish an opposite factor
exposure to offset that particular source of risk. Often, futures contracts can be
used to hedge particular factor exposures. We explore this application in
Chapter 22.
As it stands, however, the multifactor model is no more than a description of
the factors that affect security returns. There is no theory in the equation.
The obvious question left unanswered by a factor model like Equation 10.2 is
where E ( R ) comes from, in other words, what determines a securitys
expected excess rate of return. This is where we need a theoretical model of
equilibrium security returns. We therefore now turn to arbitrage pricing theory
to help determine the expected value, E ( R ), in Equations 10.1 and 10.2.
10.2 Arbitrage Pricing Theory.
Stephen Ross developed the arbitrage pricing theory (APT) in 1976. 1 Like
the CAPM, the APT predicts a security market line linking expected returns to
risk, but the path it takes to the SML is quite different. Rosss APT relies on
three key propositions: (1) security returns can be described by a factor model;
(2) there are sufficient securities to diversify away idiosyncratic risk; and (3)
an arbitrage opportunity will mobilize large dollar amounts and quickly restore
equilibrium.
Practitioners often use the terms arbitrage and arbitrageurs more loosely than
our strict definition. Arbitrageur often refers to a professional searching for
mispriced securities in specific areas such as merger-target stocks, rather than
to one who seeks strict (risk-free) arbitrage opportunities. Such activity is
sometimes called risk arbitrage to distinguish it from pure arbitrage.
To leap ahead, in Part Four we will discuss derivative securities such as
futures and options, whose market values are determined by prices of other
securities. For example, the value of a call option on a stock is determined by
the price of the stock. For such securities, strict arbitrage is a practical
possibility, and the condition of no-arbitrage leads to exact pricing. In the case
of stocks and other primitive securities whose values are not determined
strictly by another bundle of assets, no-arbitrage conditions must be obtained
by appealing to diversification arguments.
Well-Diversified Portfolios.
Consider the risk of a portfolio of stocks in a single-factor market. We first show
that if a portfolio is well diversified, its firm-specific or nonfactor risk becomes
negligible, so that only factor (or systematic) risk remains. The excess return on
an n -stock portfolio with weights
are the weighted averages of the b I (betai) and risk premiums of the n
securities. The portfolio nonsystematic component (which is uncorrelated with
F ) is
securities.
We can divide the variance of this portfolio into systematic and nonsystematic
sources:
where the last term is the average value of nonsystematic variance across
securities. In words, the nonsystematic variance of the portfolio equals the
average nonsystematic variance divided by n. Therefore, when n is large,
nonsystematic variance approaches zero. This is the effect of diversification.
This property is true of portfolios other than the equally weighted one. Any
portfolio for which each w i becomes consistently smaller as n gets large (more
precisely, for which each wi2 approaches zero as n increases) will satisfy the
condition that the portfolio nonsystematic risk will approach zero. This property
motivates us to define a well-diversified portfolio as one with each weight,
w i , small enough that for practical purposes the nonsystematic
variance, s 2 -varianza delta al 2-- ( e P ), is negligible.
CONCEPT CHECK 10.2.
a. A portfolio is invested in a very large number of shares ( n is large).
However, one-half of the portfolio is invested in stock 1, and the rest of the
portfolio is equally divided among the other n 2 1 shares. Is this portfolio well
diversified?
b. Another portfolio also is invested in the same n shares, where n is very large.
Instead of equally weighting with portfolio weights of 1/ n in each stock, the
weights in half the securities are 1.5/ n while the weights in the other shares
are .5/ n. Is this portfolio well diversified?
Because the expected value of e P for any well-diversified portfolio is zero, and
its variance also is effectively zero, we can conclude that any realized value of
e P will be virtually zero. Rewriting Equation 10.1, we conclude that, for a welldiversified portfolio, for all practical purposes
The solid line in Figure 10.1, panel A plots the excess return of a well-diversified
portfolio A with E ( R A ) 5 10% and b A 5 1 for various realizations of the
systematic factor. The expected return of portfolio A is 10%; this is where the
solid line crosses the vertical axis. At this point the systematic factor is zero,
implying no macro surprises. If the macro factor is positive, the portfolios
return exceeds its expected value; if it is negative, the portfolios return falls
short of its mean. The excess return on the portfolio is therefore
Compare panel A in Figure 10.1 with panel B, which is a similar graph for a
single stock ( S ) with b s =1. The undiversified stock is subject to
nonsystematic risk, which is seen in a scatter of points around the line. The
well-diversified portfolios return, in contrast, is determined completely by the
systematic factor.
Could portfolios A and B coexist with the return pattern depicted? Clearly not:
No matter what the systematic factor turns out to be, portfolio A outperforms
portfolio B, leading to an arbitrage opportunity.
If you sell short $1 million of B and buy $1 million of A, a zero-net-investment
strategy,
you would have a riskless payoff of $20,000, as follows:
Your profit is risk-free because the factor risk cancels out across the long and
short positions. Moreover, the strategy requires zero-net-investment. You
should pursue it on an infinitely large scale until the return discrepancy
between the two portfolios disappears. Well-diversified portfolios with equal
betas must have equal expected returns in market equilibrium, or arbitrage
opportunities exist.
the Treynor- Black (T-B) procedure applied to the index model (Chapter 8)? Is
this framework preferred to the APT?
The APT and the CAPM.
The APT is built on the foundation of well-diversified portfolios. However, weve
seen, for example in Table 10.1 , that even large portfolios may have nonnegligible residual risk. Some indexed portfolios may have hundreds or
thousands of stocks, but active portfolios generally cannot, as there is a limit to
how many stocks can be actively analyzed in search of alpha. How does the
APT stand up to these limitations?
Suppose we order all portfolios in the universe by residual risk. Think of Level 0
portfolios as having zero residual risk; in other words, they are the theoretically
well-diversified portfolios of the APT. Level 1 portfolios have very small residual
risk, say up to 0.5%. Level 2 portfolios have yet greater residual SD, say up to
1%, and so on.
If the SML described by Equation 10.9 applies to all well-diversified Level 0
portfolios, it must at least approximate the risk premiums of Level 1 portfolios.
Even more important, while Level 1 risk premiums may deviate slightly from
Equation 10.9, such deviations should be unbiased, with alphas equally likely to
be positive or negative. Deviations should be uncorrelated with beta or residual
SD and should average to zero.
We can apply the same logic to portfolios of slightly higher Level 2 residual risk.
Since all Level 1 portfolios are still well approximated by Equation 10.9, so must
be risk premiums of Level 2 portfolios, albeit with slightly less accuracy. Here
too, we may take comfort in the lack of bias and zero average deviations from
the risk premiums predicted by Equation 10.9. But still, the precision of
predictions of risk premiums from Equation 10.9 consistently deteriorates with
increasing residual risk. (One might ask why we dont transform Level 2
portfolios into Level 1 or even Level 0 portfolios by further diversifying, but as
weve pointed out, this may not be feasible in practice for assets with
considerable residual risk when active portfolio size or the size of the
investment universe is limited.) If residual risk is sufficiently high and the
impediments to complete diversification are too onerous, we cannot have full
confidence in the APT and the arbitrage activities that underpin it.
Despite this shortcoming, the APT is valuable. First, recall that the CAPM
requires that almost all investors be mean-variance optimizers. We may well
suspect that they are not. The APT frees us of this assumption. It is sufficient
that a small number of sophisticated arbitrageurs scour the market for
arbitrage opportunities. This alone produces an SML, Equation 10.9, that is a
good and unbiased approximation for all assets but those with significant
residual risk.
Perhaps even more important is the fact that the APT is anchored by
observable portfolios such as the market index. The CAPM is not even testable
because it relies on an unobserved, all-inclusive portfolio. The reason that the
APT is not fully superior to the CAPM is that at the level of individual assets and
high residual risk, pure arbitrage may be insufficient to enforce Equation 10.9.
Therefore, we need to turn to the CAPM as a complementary theoretical
construct behind equilibrium risk premiums.
It should be noted, however, that when we replace the unobserved market
portfolio of the CAPM with an observed, broad index portfolio that may not be
efficient, we no longer can be sure that the CAPM predicts risk premiums of all
assets with no bias. Neither model therefore is free of limitations. Comparing
the APT arbitrage strategy to maximization of the Sharpe ratio in the context of
an index model may well be the more useful framework for analysis.
PAGINA 336
The APT and Portfolio Optimization in a Single-Index Market.
The APT is couched in a single-factor market 5 and applies with perfect
accuracy to welldiversified portfolios. It shows arbitrageurs how to generate
infinite profits if the risk premium of a well-diversified portfolio deviates from
Equation 10.9. The trades executed by these arbitrageurs are the enforcers of
the accuracy of this equation.
In effect, the APT shows how to take advantage of security mispricing when
diversification opportunities are abundant. When you lock in and scale up an
arbitrage opportunity youre sure to be rich as Croesus regardless of the
composition of the rest of your portfolio, but only if the arbitrage portfolio is
truly risk-free! However, if the arbitrage position is not perfectly well
diversified, an increase in its scale (borrowing cash, or borrowing shares to go
short) will increase the risk of the arbitrage position, potentially without bound.
The APT ignores this complication.
Now consider an investor who confronts the same single factor market, and
whose security analysis reveals an underpriced asset (or portfolio), that is, one
whose risk premium implies a positive alpha. This investor can follow the
advice weaved throughout Chapters 68 to construct an optimal risky portfolio.
The optimization process will consider both the potential profit from a position
in the mispriced asset, as well as the risk of the overall portfolio and efficient
diversification. As we saw in Chapter 8, the Treynor- Black (T-B) procedure can
be summarized as follows.
1. Estimate the risk premium and standard deviation of the benchmark (index)
portfolio,
RPM and sM . ( delta, desviacion standar)
2. Place all the assets that are mispriced into an active portfolio. Call the alpha
of the
active portfolio aA (a es alfa) , its systematic-risk coefficient bA , and its
residual risk s ( e A ).
Your optimal risky portfolio will allocate to the active portfolio a weight, wA (w
asteriswco sub A)* :