Advertisement

Financial Markets and Portfolio Management

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 263–279 | Cite as

An empirical investigation of asset pricing models under divergent lending and borrowing rates

  • Yacine HammamiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Asset pricing theory implies that the estimate of the zero-beta rate should fall between divergent lending and borrowing rates. This paper proposes a formal test of this restriction using the difference between the prime loan rate and the 1-month Treasury bill rate as a proxy for the difference between borrowing and lending rates. Based on simulations, this paper shows that in the ordinary least squares case, the Fama and MacBeth (J Pol Econ 81:607–636, 1973) t-statistic has high power against a general alternative, which is not true of the Shanken (Rev Financ Stud 5:1–33, 1992) and Kan et al. (J Financ doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12035, 2013) t-statistics. In the generalized least squares case, all three t-statistics have high power. The empirical investigation highlights that only the intertemporal capital asset pricing model reasonably prices the zero-beta portfolio. Other models, such as the Fama and French (J Financ Econ 33:3–56, 1993) model, do not assign the correct value to the zero-beta rate.

Keywords

Asset pricing models Two-pass cross-sectional regressions Zero-beta portfolio Misspecification-robust t-ratio 

JEL Classification

C10 G10 G12 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referee for detailed comments and suggestions that were very helpful in improving the paper.

References

  1. Bansal, R., Dittmar, R., Lundblad, C.: Consumption, dividends, and the cross section of equity returns. J. Financ. 60, 1972 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, F.: Capital market equilibrium with restricted borrowing. J. Bus. 45, 444–455 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan, M.: Capital market equilibrium with divergent borrowing and lending rates. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 6, 1197–1205 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, J.: Understanding risk and returns. J. Pol. Econ. 104, 299–345 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carhart, M.: On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Financ. 52, 57–82 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 33, 3–56 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fama, E.F., MacBeth, J.: Risk, return and equilibrium: empirical tests. J. Pol. Econ. 81, 607–636 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forbes, S.M., Paul, C.: Modeling the prime rate: an ordered-response approach. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 1, 147–157 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbons, M., Ross, S., Shanken, J.: A test of the efficiency of a given portfolio. Econometrica 57, 1121–1152 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldberg, M.: The pricing of the prime rate. J. Bank. Financ. 6, 277–296 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goyal, A.: Empirical cross-sectional asset pricing: a survey. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 26, 3–38 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grauer, R., Janmaat, J.A.: On the power of cross-sectional and multivariate tests of the CAPM. J. Bank. Financ. 33, 775–787 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harvey, C., Morganson, G.: The New York Times Dictionary of Money and Investing. Henry Holt and Company and Times Books, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Jagannathan, R., Wang, Y.: Lazy investors, discretionary consumption, and the cross section of stock returns. J. Financ. 62, 1623–1661 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jagannathan, R., Wang, Z.: The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns. J. Financ. 51, 3–54 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kan, R., Robotti, C., Shanken, J.: Pricing model performance and the two-pass cross-sectional regression methodology. J. Financ. (2013). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kan, R., Zhang, C.: Two-pass tests of asset pricing models with useless factors. J. Financ. 54, 203–235 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kling, J.L.: The dynamic behavior of business loans and the prime rate. J. Bank. Financ. 9, 421–442 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lettau, M., Ludvigson, S.: Resurrecting the (C)CAPM: a cross-sectional test when risk premia are time-varying. J. Pol. Econ. 109, 1238–1287 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewellen, J., Nagel, S., Shanken, J.: A skeptical appraisal of asset-pricing tests. J. Financ. Econ. 96, 175–194 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, Q., Vassalou, M., Xing, Y.: Sector investments, growth rates and the cross-section of equity returns. J. Bus. 79, 1637–1665 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pástor, L., Stambaugh, R.F.: Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. J. Pol. Econ. 111, 642–685 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petkova, R.: Do Fama-French factors proxy for innovations in predictive variables? J. Financ. 61, 581–612 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shanken, J.: Testing portfolio efficiency when the zero-beta rate is unknown: a note. J. Financ. 41, 269–276 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shanken, J.: On the estimation of beta-pricing models. Rev. Financ. Stud. 5, 1–33 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shanken, J., Zhou, G.: Estimating and testing beta pricing models: alternative methods and their performance in simulations. J. Financ. Econ. 84, 40–86 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Söderlind, P.: C-CAPM refinements and the cross-section of returns. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 20, 49–73 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vassalou, M.: News related to future GDP growth as a risk factor in equity returns. J. Financ. Econ. 68, 47–73 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yogo, M.: A consumption-based explanation of expected returns. J. Financ. 61, 539–580 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society for Financial Market Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISG TunisUniversity of TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations