The Upgrading of CAPM Model: from Fama-French 3 Factors to Multi-factors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v38i.4329Keywords:
CAPM, Fama French, Limitations, Outlook.Abstract
In general, financial theorem has always been particularly interested in the trade-off for dynamics of associated risk and expected return. This mystery had remained convoluted for decades until William Sharpe and John Lintner developed the first practical framework of the Capital Asset Pricing Models (CAPM). As a matter of fact, CAPM is founded on the idea that asset prices are influenced by inherent, risk free and market risk returns, and diversification of portfolios also benefited the investor for risk reduction. Since this finding, many advancements have been made beyond the initial models of CAPM such as the ICAPM and Fama French models. Thus, this paper presents founding theorems of the Capital Asset Pricing Model, discusses its historical advancements into different equations and demonstrate its potential limitations and future outlooks. To be specific, the principle and adding factors for the Fama French model of three factors, five factors and other quantity factors are discussed with the implementations and applications. Overall, these results provide historical summary as well as new insights for further exploration of assets pricing scenarios based on multi factorial concepts.
Downloads
References
Sharpe W F. Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk. The Journal of Finance, 1964, 19(3): 425–442.
Lintner J. The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1965, 47(1): 13–37.
Latané H A. Rational Decision-Making in Portfolio Management. The Journal of Finance, 1959, 14(3): 429–430.
Basu S. Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price-Earnings Ratios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The Journal of Finance, 1977, 32(3): 663–682.
Bhandari L C. Debt/Equity Ratio and Expected Common Stock Returns: Empirical Evidence. The Journal of Finance, 1988, 43(2): 507–528.
Fama E F, French K R. The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, 1992, 47(2): 427–465.
Fama E F, French K R. A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of financial economics, 2015, 116(1): 1-22.
Hundal S, Eskola A, Tuan D. Risk–return relationship in the Finnish stock market in the light of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Journal of Transnational Management, 2019, 24(4): 305-322.
Lin Q. The q5 model and its consistency with the intertemporal CAPM. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2021, 127: 106096.
Fama, E F, French K R. Dividend yields and expected stock returns. Journal of financial economics, 1988, 22(1): 3-25.
Blanco B. The use of CAPM and Fama and French Three Factor Model: portfolios selection. Public and Municipal Finance, 2012, 1(2): 61-70.
Jan S U, Iqbal S, Aamir A. Comparing CAPM and FAMA French for Predicting Stock Returns: New Evidence from Pakistan Stock Exchange. Ilkogretim Online, 2021, 20(3).
Gutierrez Jr R C, Prinsky C A. Momentum, reversal, and the trading behaviors of institutions. Journal of Financial Markets, 2007, 10(1): 48-75.
Blitz D, Hanauer M X, Vidojevic M, Van Vliet P. Five concerns with the five-factor model. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2018, 44(4): 71-78.
Linnainmaa J T, Roberts M R. The history of the cross-section of stock returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 2018, 31(7): 2606-2649.
Carhart M M. On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of finance, 1997, 52(1): 57-82.
Jegadeesh N, Titman S. Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. The Journal of finance, 1993, 48(1): 65-91.
Dirkx P, Peter F J. The Fama-French five-factor model plus momentum: Evidence for the German market. Schmalenbach Business Review, 2020, 72(4): 661-684.
Foye J, Mramor D, Pahor M. A respecified Fama French three‐factor model for the new European union member states. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 2013, 24(1): 3-25.






