Capital Asset Pricing Model
Bill Sharpe made his first big breakthrough by taking the picture
on the previous
page and showing how the market must price individual securities
in relation to their asset class (a.k.a. the index, or the "optimal
mix" in the picture). The derivation isn't exactly a walk in the
park (yikes!),
but the result is a simple linear relationship known as the Capital
Asset Pricing Model:
r = Rf + beta x (
Km - Rf ) where
r is the expected return rate on a security;
Rf is the rate of a "risk-free" investment, i.e.
cash; Km is the return rate of the appropriate
asset class.
Beta measures the volatility of the security, relative to the
asset class. The equation is saying that investors require higher
levels of expected returns to compensate them for higher expected
risk. You can think of the formula as predicting a security's
behavior as a function of beta: CAPM says that if you know a
security's beta then you know the value of r that investors expect
it to have.
Naturally, somebody has to verify that this simple relationship
actually holds true in the market. Part of the question is how few
classes you can get away with: whether you can use a very coarse
division into just "stocks" and "bonds", or whether you need to
divide much further (into "domestic mid-cap value stocks", and so
on). There are also ongoing attempts at "building better betas" that
incorporate company debt and other traditional valuation measures,
instead of relying solely on past volatility, to measure risk. All
of this is a full-time job for academic modern portfolio theorists
(and deriding the whole effort is a popular hobby for some
traditional stock analysts: how could a magnificent company equal a
mediocre one times beta? To them, CAPM seems like a very blunt
instrument.)
CAPM has a lot of important consequences. For one thing it turns
finding the efficient frontier into a doable task, because you only
have to calculate the covariances of every pair of classes,
instead of every pair of everything.
Another consequence is that CAPM implies that investing in
individual stocks is pointless, because you can duplicate the reward
and risk characteristics of any security just by using the right mix
of cash with the appropriate asset class. This is why followers of
MPT avoid stocks, and instead build portfolios out of low cost index
funds.
(One point about that last paragraph. If you are trying to
duplicate an expected return that's greater than that of the asset
class, you have to hold "negative" cash, meaning you have to buy the
index on margin. This is consistent with the big message of MPT -
that trying to beat the index is inherently risky).
Next:
finding CAPM from linear regression. |