A critique of the asset pricing theory's tests Part I: On past and potential testability of the theory

https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(77)90009-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Testing the two-parameter asset pricing theory is difficult (and currently infeasible). Due to a mathematical equivalence between the individual return/‘beta’ linearity relation and the market portfolio's mean-variance efficiency, any valid test presupposes complete knowledge of the true market portfolio's composition. This implies, inter alia, that every individual asset must be included in a correct test. Errors of inference inducible by incomplete tests are discussed and some ambiguities in published tests are explained.

References (39)

  • L. Fisher

    Some new stock market indices

    Journal of Business

    (1966)
  • I. Friend et al.

    Measurement of portfolio performance under uncertainty

    American Economic Review

    (1970)
  • N.H. Hakansson

    Risk disposition and the separation property in portfolio selection

    Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

    (1969)
  • N. Jacob

    The measurement of market similarity for securities under uncertainty

    Journal of Business

    (1970)
  • M.C. Jensen

    Capital markets: Theory and evidence

    Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science

    (1972)
  • M.C. Jensen

    The foundations and current state of capital market theory

  • J. Lintner

    The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets

    Review of Economics and Statistics

    (1965)
  • J. Lintner

    The aggregation of investor's diverse judgements and preferences in purely competitive security markets

    Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

    (1969)
  • J.B. Long
    (1976)
  • Cited by (1578)

    • The sources of portfolio volatility and mutual fund performance

      2024, International Review of Financial Analysis
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This is Part I of a three-part study. Parts II and III are summarized in the introduction here, but will appear in later issues. A copy of the complete paper can be obtained by writing the author at: Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA.

    ∗∗

    This paper was written while the author was at the Centre d'Enseignement Supérieur des Affaires, France. Eugene Fama, Michael C. Jensen, John B. Long, Jr., Stephen Ross and Bruno H. Solnik provided many useful comments and Patricia Porter provided excellent secretarial service. While the paper was being written, Fama pointed out that his new book (1976) contains some of the same analysis and conclusions. New papers by Stephen Ross (forthcoming) and John B. Long (1976) contain results emphasized, and formerly believed to have been discovered, here. The reader will be able to verify, however, that most of this material is non-redundant.

    To the authors criticised here: these papers were singled out because they are the best and most widely read on the subject. I have written some papers in this area too and have taught the subject to a number of unsuspecting students. So, the absence of detailed self-criticism should be attributed to the greater importance of the other papers and does not imply any personal prescience. None was present.

    View full text