Lecture Notes in Empirical Finance (PhD): Linear Factor Models
|
|
- Gabriel Hudson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Contents Lecture Notes in Empirical Finance (PhD): Linear Factor Models Paul Söderlind 8 June 26 University of St Gallen Address: s/bf-hsg, Rosenbergstrasse 52, CH-9 St Gallen, Switzerland PaulSoderlind@unisgch Document name: EmpFinPhDLinFTeX 3 Linear Factor Models 2 3 CAPM Tests: Overview 2 32 Testing CAPM: Traditional LS Approach 3 32 CAPM with One Asset: Traditional LS Approach CAPM with Several Assets: Traditional LS Approach 7 33 Testing CAPM: GMM 8 33 CAPM with Several Assets: GMM and a Wald Test CAPM and Several Assets: GMM and an LM Test Size and Power ohe CAPM Tests Choice of Portfolios Empirical Evidence 4 34 Testing Multi-Factor Models (Factors are Excess Returns) 5 34 A Multi-Factor Model Multi-Factor Model: GMM Empirical Evidence Coding ohe GMM Problem 8 35 Testing Multi-Factor Models (General Factors) 2 35 GMM Estimation with General Factors Traditional Cross-Sectional Regressions as Special Cases Alternative Formulation of Moment Conditions using α = β(λ E ) What ihe Factor is a Portfolio? Empirical Evidence Fama-MacBeth 25
2 MV frontiers before and after (α=) MV frontiers before and after (α=5) Solid curves: 2 assets, Dashed curves: 3 assets Chapter 3 µ 5 µ 5 Linear Factor Models 3 CAPM Tests: Overview Reference: Cochrane (2) 2; Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) 5 Let Rit e = R it R be the excess return on asset i in excess over the riskfree asset, and let = R mt R be the excess return on the market portfolio CAPM with a riskfree return says that α i = in Rit e = α + β + ε it, where E ε it = and Cov(, ε it ) = (3) µ 5 σ 5 MV frontiers before and after (α= 4) 5 σ 5 σ The new asset has the abnormal return α compared to the market (of 2 assets) Means 8 5 α + β(er m R f ) Cov matrix Tang portf N = NaN α= α= α= The economic importance of a non-zero intercept (α) is that the tangency portfolio changes ihe test asset is added to the investment opportunity set See Figure 3 for an illustration The basic test of CAPM is to estimate (3) on a single asset and then test ihe intercept is zero This can easily be extended to several assets, where we test if all the intercepts are zero Notice that the test of CAPM can be given two interpretations If we assume that R mt is the correct benchmark, then it is a test of whether asset R it is correctly priced (this is the approach in mutual fund evaluations) Alternatively, if we assume that R it is correctly priced, then it is a test ohe mean-variance efficiency of R mt (compare the Roll critique) Figure 3: MV frontiers with 2 and 3 assets 32 Testing CAPM: Traditional LS Approach 32 CAPM with One Asset: Traditional LS Approach Ihe residuals in the CAPM regression are iid, then the traditional LS approach is just fine: estimate (3) and form a t-test ohe null hypothesis that the intercept is zero Ihe disturbance is iid normally distributed, then this approach is the ML approach To understand the properties ohe LS approch, we use the results in the following remark Remark (Covariance matrix of LS estimator) Consider the regression equation y t = x t b +u t With iid errors that are independent of all regressors (also across observations), 2 3
3 the LS estimator, ˆb Ls, is asymptotically distributed as T ( ˆb Ls b ) d N(, σ 2 xx ), where σ 2 = E u 2 t and xx = E T t= x t x t /T When the regressors are just a constant (equal to one) and one variable regressor,, so x t =,, then we have xx = E T t= x t x t /T = E Tt= T σ 2 xx = σ 2 E ft 2 (E ) 2 E ft 2 E (In the last line we use Var( ) = E f 2 t (E ) 2 ) E ft 2 = E E ft 2, so E = σ 2 Var( ) + (E ) 2 Var( ) E E This remark fits well with the CAPM regression (3) The variance ohe intercept estimator is therefore Var( ˆα α ) = { + (E ) 2 } Var(ε it )/T (32) Var ( ) = ( + S R 2 f ) Var(ε it)/t, (33) where S R 2 f is the squared Sharpe ratio ohe market portfolio (recall: is the excess return on market portfolio) We see that the uncertainty about the intercept is high when the disturbance is volatile and when the sample is short, but also when the Sharpe ratio of the market is high Note that a large market Sharpe ratio means that the market asks for a high compensation for taking on risk A bit uncertainty about how risky asset i is then gives a large uncertainty about what the risk-adjusted return should be The t-test ohe hypothesis that α = is then ˆα Std( ˆα) = ˆα ( + S R 2 f ) Var(ε it)/t d N(, ) under H : α = (34) Note that this is the distribution under the null hypothesis that the true value ohe intercept is zero, that is, that CAPM is correct (in this respect, at least) Remark 2 (Quadratic forms of normally distributed random variables) Ihe n vector X N(, ), then Y = X X χn 2 Therefore, ihe n scalar random variables 4 X i, i =,, n, are uncorrelated and have the distributions N(, σi 2 ), i =,, n, then Y = i= n X i 2/σ i 2 χn 2 Instead of a t-test, we can use the equivalent chi-square test ˆα 2 Var( ˆα) = ˆα 2 ( + S R 2 f ) Var(ε it)/t d χ 2 under H : α = (35) The chi-square test is equivalent to the t-test when we are testing only one restriction, but it has the advantage that it also allows us to test several restrictions at the same time Both the t-test and the chi square tests are Wald tests (estimate unrestricted model and then test the restrictions) It is quite straightforward to use the properties of minimum-variance frontiers (see Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken (989), and MacKinlay (995)) to show that the test statistic in (35) can be written ˆα i 2 Var( ˆα i ) = (Ŝ R c ) 2 (Ŝ R f ) 2 + (Ŝ R f ) 2 /T, (36) where S R f is the Sharpe ratio ohe market portfolio and S R c is the Sharpe ratio of the tangency portfolio when investment in both the market return and asset i is possible (Recall that the tangency portfolio is the portfolio with the highest possible Sharpe ratio) Ihe market portfolio has the same (squared) Sharpe ratio as the tangency portfolio ohe mean-variance frontier of R it and R mt (so the market portfolio is mean-variance efficient also when we take R it into account) then the test statistic, ˆα 2 i / Var( ˆα i), is zero and CAPM is not rejected Proof (of (36)) From the CAPM regression (3) we have Rit e βi 2 Cov Rmt e = σ m 2 + Var(ε it) β i σm 2 µ i e β i σm 2 σm 2, and = µ e m α i + β i µ e m µ e m Suppose we use this information to construct a mean-variance frontier for both R it and R mt, and we find the tangency portfolio, with excess return Rct e It is straightforward to show that the square ohe Sharpe ratio ohe tangency portfolio is µ e µ e, where µ e is the vector of expected excess returns and is the covariance matrix By using the covariance matrix and mean vector above, we get that the squared Sharpe ratio for the 5
4 tangency portfolio, µ e µ e, (using both R it and R mt ) is which we can write as ( µ e ) 2 ( c = α2 i µ e ) 2 Var(ε it ) + m, σ c σ m (S R c ) 2 = α2 i Var(ε it ) + (S R m) 2 Use the notation = R mt R and combine this with (33) and to get (36) It is also possible to construct small sample test (that do not rely on any asymptotic results), which may be a better approximation ohe correct distribution in real-life samples provided the strong assumptions are (almost) satisfied The most straightforward modification is to transform (35) into an F,T -test This is the same as using a t-test in (34) since it is only one restriction that is tested (recall that if Z t n, then Z 2 F(, n)) An alternative testing approach is to use an LR or LM approach: restrict the intercept in the CAPM regression to be zero and estimate the model with ML (assuming that the errors are normally distributed) For instanc, for an LR test, the likelihood value (when α = ) is then compared to the likelihood value without restrictions A common finding is that these tests tend to reject a true null hypothesis too often when the critical values from the asymptotic distribution are used: the actual small sample size ohe test is thus larger than the asymptotic (or nominal ) size (see Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) Table 5) To study the power ohe test (the frequency of rejections of a false null hypothesis) we have to specify an alternative data generating process (for instance, how much extra return in excess ohat motivated by CAPM) and the size ohe test (the critical value to use) Once that is done, it is typically found that these tests require a substantial deviation from CAPM and/or a long sample to get good power 322 CAPM with Several Assets: Traditional LS Approach Suppose we have n test assets Stack (3) expressions (3) for i =,, n as Let = R mt R and stack the expressions (3) for i =,, n as R e t R e nt = α + α n β + β n ε t ε nt, E ε it = and Cov(, ε it ) = (37) This is a system of seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) with the same regressor (see, for instance, Greene (23) 4) In this case, the efficient estimator (GLS) is LS on each equation separately Moreover, the covariance matrix ohe coefficients is particularly simple To see what the covariances ohe coefficients are, write each ohe the regression equations in (37) on a traditional form Rit e = x t θ i + ε t, where x t = (38) If we define xx = plim T t= x t x t /T, and σ i j = plim T t= ε itε jt /T, (39) then the asymptotic covariance matrix ohe vectors ˆθ i and ˆθ j (assets i and j) is σ i j xx /T, that is, ACov( σ σ n T ˆθ) = xx (3) σ n ˆσ nn In a large sample, the estimator is normally distributed Therefore, under the null hypothesis (that ther intecepts are zero)) we have the following result From Remark we know that the upper left element of xx equals + S R2, so T ˆα d N n, ( + S R 2 ), where = σ σ n (3) σ n ˆσ nn 6 7
5 In practice we use the sample moments for the covariance matrix To test the null hypothesis that all intercepts are zero, we use the test statistic T ˆα ( + S R 2 ) ˆα χ 2 n (32) As for the case of a single asset, it is straightforward to do an LR or LM test instead Assuming the errors are normally distributed, a restricted model (α = ) is estimated by ML (LS actually), and the properties ohe likelihood function are used for testing 33 Testing CAPM: GMM 33 CAPM with Several Assets: GMM and a Wald Test To test n assets at the same time when the errors are non-iid we make use ohe GMM framework A special case is when the residuals are iid The results in this section will then coincide with those in Section 32 Let = R mt R and stack the expressions (3) for i =,, n as R e t R e nt = α + α n or more compactly β + β n ε t ε nt, E ε it = and Cov(, ε it ) =, (33) R e t = α + β + ε t, E ε t = n and Cov(, ε t ) = n, (34) where α and β are n vectors Clearly, setting n = gives the case of a single test asset The 2n GMM moment conditions are that, at the true values of α and β, E g t (α, β) = 2n, where (35) ε t Rt e α β g t (α, β) = = ( ) (36) ε t R e t α β There are as many parameters as moment conditions, so the GMM estimator picks values of α and β such that the sample analogues of (35) are satisfied exactly ḡ( ˆα, ˆβ) = T g t ( ˆα, ˆβ) = T t= t= Rt e ˆα ˆβ (Rt e = 2n, (37) ˆα ˆβ ) which gives the LS estimator For the inference, we allow for the possibility of non-iid errors (With iid errors we get the same results as in Section 32, at least asymptotically) With point estimates and their sampling distribution it is straightforward to set up a Wald test for the hypothesis that all elements in α are zero ˆα Var( ˆα) ˆα d χ 2 n (38) Remark 3 (Easy coding ohe GMM Problem (37)) Estimate by LS, equation by equation Then, plug in the fitted residuals in (36) to generate time series ohe moments (will be important for the tests) Remark 4 (Distribution of GMM) Let the parameter vector in the moment condition have the true value b Define S = ACov T ḡ (b ) and D = plim ḡ(b ) b When the estimator solves min ḡ (b) S ḡ (b) or when the model is exactly identified, the distribution ohe GMM estimator is T ( ˆb b ) d ( ) N ( k, V ), where V = D S D = D S (D ) Details on the Wald Test To be concrete, consider the case with two assets ( and 2) so the parameter vector is b = α, α 2, β, β 2 Write out (35) as ḡ (α, β) Rt e ḡ 2 (α, β) ḡ 3 (α, β) = α β T R2t e α 2 β 2 T t= (Rt e α β ) = 4, (39) ḡ 4 (α, β) (R2t e α 2 β 2 ) where ḡ (α, β) denotes the sample average ohe first moment condition 8 9
6 The Jacobian is ḡ / α ḡ / α 2 ḡ / β ḡ / β 2 ḡ(α, β) α, α 2, β, β 2 = ḡ 2 / α ḡ 2 / α 2 ḡ 2 / β ḡ 2 / β 2 ḡ 3 / α ḡ 3 / α 2 ḡ 3 / β ḡ 3 / β 2 ḡ 4 / α ḡ 4 / α 2 ḡ 4 / β ḡ 4 / β 2 = T T t= ft 2 (32) ft 2 Note that, in this case with a linear model, the Jacobian does not involve the parameters that we want to estimate This means that we do not have to worry about evaluating the Jacobian at the true parameter values The probability limit of (32) is simply the expected value, which can written as ( ) D = E ft 2 I 2 = E I 2, (32) where is the Kronecker product For n assets, change I 2 to I n (The last expression applies also to the case of several factors) Remark 5 (Kronecker product) If A and B are matrices, then a B a n B A B = a m B a mn B From Remark 4, we can write the covariance matrix ohe 2n vector of parameters (n parameters in α and another n in β) as ( ) T ˆα ACov ˆβ = D S (D ) (322) The asymptotic covariance matrix of T times the sample moment conditions, eval- uated at the true parameter values, that is at the true disturbances, is defined as S = ACov ( T T ) g t (α, β) = t= s= R(s), where (323) R(s) = E g t (α, β)g t s (α, β) (324) With n assets, we can write (324) in terms ohe n vector ε t as R(s) = E g t (α, β)g t s (α, β) = E ε t ε t ε t s s ε t s = E ( ε t ) ( (The last expression applies also to the case of several factors) s ε t s ) (325) The Newey-West estimator is often a good estimator of S, but the performance ohe test improved, by imposing (correct, of course) restrictions on the R(s) matrices Example 6 (Special case : is independent of ε t s, errors are iid, and n = ) With E these assumptions R(s) = 2 2 if s =, and S = E E ft 2 Var(ε it ) Combining with (32) gives ACov ( T ) ˆα E = ˆβ E E ft 2 Var(ε it), which is the same expression as σ 2 xx in Remark, which assumed iid errors Example 7 (Special case 2: as in Special case, but n ) With these assumptions E R(s) = 2n 2n if s =, and S = E E ft 2 E ε t ε t Combining with (32) gives ACov ( T ) ˆα E = ˆβ E E ft 2 ( E ε t ε t) This follows from the facts that (A B) = A B and (A B)(C D) = AC B D (if conformable)
7 332 CAPM and Several Assets: GMM and an LM Test We could also construct an LM test instead by imposing α = in the moment conditions (35) and (37) The moment conditions are then Rt e β E g(β) = E (Rt e = 2n (326) β ) Since there are q = 2n moment conditions, but only n parameters (the β vector), this model is overidentified We could either use a weighting matrix in the GMM loss function or combine the moment conditions so the model becomes exactly identified With a weighting matrix, the estimator solves min b ḡ(b) W ḡ(b), (327) where ḡ(b) is the sample average ohe moments (evaluated at some parameter vector b), and W is a positive definite (and symmetric) weighting matrix Once we have estimated the model, we can test the n overidentifying restrictions that all q = 2n moment conditions are satisfied at the estimated n parameters ˆβ If not, the restriction (null hypothesis) that α = n is rejected To combine the moment conditions so the model becomes exactly identified, premultiply by a matrix A to get A n 2n E g(β) = n (328) The model is then tested by testing if all 2n moment conditions in (326) are satisfied at this vector of estimates ohe betas This is the GMM analogue to a classical LM test For instance, to effectively use only the last n moment conditions in the estimation, we specify A E g(β) = n n I n E This clearly gives the classical LS estimator without an intercept Rt e β (Rt e = n (329) β ) Tt= Rt ˆβ e = /T Tt= ft 2 /T (33) can combine the four moment conditions into only two by Rt e β A E g t (β, β 2 ) = E R2t e β 2 (Rt e β ) = 2 (R2t e β 2 ) Remark 9 (Test of overidentifying assumption in GMM) When the GMM estimator solves the quadratic loss function ḡ(β) S ḡ(β) (or is exactly identified), then the J test statistic is T ḡ( ˆβ) S ḡ( ˆβ) d χq k 2, where q is the number of moment conditions and k is the number of parameters Remark (Distribution of GMM, more general results) When GMM solves min b ḡ(b) W ḡ(b) or Aḡ( ˆβ) = k, the distribution ohe GMM estimator and the test of overidentifying assumptions are different than in Remarks 4 and Size and Power ohe CAPM Tests The size (using asymptotic critical values) and power in small samples is often found to be disappointing Typically, these tests tend to reject a true null hypothesis too often (see Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) Table 5) and the power to reject a false null hypothesis is often fairly low These features are especially pronounced when the sample is small and the number of assets, n, is low One useful rule ohumb is that a saturation ratio (the number of observations per parameter) below (or so) is likely to give poor performance ohe test In the test here we have nt observations, 2n parameters in α and β, and n(n + )/2 unique parameters in S, so the saturation ratio is T/(2 + (n + )/2) For instance, with T = 6 and n = or at T = and n = 2, we have a saturation ratio of 8, which is very low (compare Table 5 in CLM) One possible way of dealing with the wrong size ohe test is to use critical values from simulations ohe small sample distributions (Monte Carlo simulations or bootstrap simulations) Example 8 (Combining moment conditions, CAPM on two assets) With two assets we 2 3
8 334 Choice of Portfolios This type oest is typically done on portfolios of assets, rather than on the individual assets themselves There are several econometric and economic reasons for this The econometric techniques we apply need the returns to be (reasonably) stationary in the sense that they have approximately the same means and covariance (with other returns) throughout the sample (individual assets, especially stocks, can change character as the company moves into another business) It might be more plausible that size or industry portfolios are stationary in this sense Individual portfolios are typically very volatile, which makes it hard to obtain precise estimate and to be able to reject anything It sometimes makes economic sense to sort the assets according to a characteristic (size or perhaps book/market) and then test ihe model is true for these portfolios Rejection ohe CAPM for such portfolios may have an interest in itself 335 Empirical Evidence See Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) 65 (Table 6 in particular) and Cochrane (2) 22 One ohe more interesting studies is Fama and French (993) (see also Fama and French (996)) They construct 25 stock portfolios according to two characteristics ohe firm: the size and the book value to market value ratio (BE/ME) In June each year, they sort the stocks according to size and BE/ME They then form a 5 5 matrix of portfolios, where portfolio i j belongs to the ith size quantile and the jth BE/ME quantile They run a traditional CAPM regression on each ohe 25 portfolios (monthly data ) and then study ihe expected excess returns are related to the betas as they should according to CAPM (recall that CAPM implies E Rit e = β i E Rmt e ) However, there is little relation between E Rit e and β i (see Cochrane (2) 22, Figure 29) This lack of relation (a cloud in the β i E R e it space) is due to the combination owo features ohe data First, within a BE/ME quantile, there is a positive relation (across size quantiles) between E R e it and β i as predicted by CAPM (see Cochrane (2) 22, Figure 2) Second, within a size quantile there is a negative relation (across BE/ME quantiles) between E R e it and β i in stark contrast to CAPM (see Cochrane (2) 22, Figure 2) Mean excess return US industry portfolios, 947: 25:5 5 5 I D H A GB C J F 5 5 β all A (NoDur) B (Durbl) C (Manuf) D (Enrgy) E (HiTec) F (Telcm) G (Shops) H (Hlth ) I (Utils) J (Other) alpha NaN pval E StdErr NaN Mean excess return US industry portfolios, 947: 25:5 5 5 I D H A GB C J F Figure 32: CAPM, US industry portfolios Excess market return: 74% 5 5 Predicted mean excess return (with α=) CAPM Factor: US market test statistics use Newey West std test statistics ~ χ 2 (n), n = no oest assets α and StdErr are in annualized % 34 Testing Multi-Factor Models (Factors are Excess Returns) Reference: Cochrane (2) 2; Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) A Multi-Factor Model When the K factors,, are excess returns, the null hypothesis typically says that α i = in R e it = α i + β i + ε it, where E ε it = and Cov(, ε it ) = K (33) and β i is now an K vector The CAPM regression is a special case when the market excess return is the only factor In other models like ICAPM (see Cochrane (2) 92), E 4 5
9 Mean excess return US industry portfolios, 947: 25:5 5 5 H E D AG CJ B F I 5 5 Predicted mean excess return all A (NoDur) B (Durbl) C (Manuf) D (Enrgy) E (HiTec) F (Telcm) G (Shops) H (Hlth ) I (Utils) J (Other) alpha NaN Fama French model Factors: US market, SMB (size), and HML (book to market) test statistics use Newey West std test statistics ~ χ 2 (n), n = no oest assets α and StdErr are in annualized % pval StdErr NaN Note that this expression looks similar to (35) the only difference is that may now be a vector (and we therefore need to use the Kronecker product) It is then intuitively clear that the expressions for the asymptotic covariance matrix of ˆα and ˆβ will look very similar too When the system is exactly identified, the GMM estimator solves ḡ(α, β) = n(+k ), (334) which is the same as LS equation by equation Instead, when we restrict α = n (overidentified system), then we either specify a weighting matrix W and solve min β ḡ(β) W ḡ(β), (335) or we specify a matrix A to combine the moment conditions and solve Figure 33: Three-factor model, US industry portfolios we typically have several factors We stack the returns for n assets to get Rt e α β β K ε t = + +, or α n β n β nk f K t ε nt R e nt R e t = α + β + ε t, where E ε t = n and Cov(, ε t ) = K n, (332) where α is n and β is n K Notice that β i j shows how the ith asset depends on the jth factor This is, of course, very similar to the CAPM (one-factor) model and both the LS and GMM approaches are straightforward to extend I will elaborate on the GMM approach 342 Multi-Factor Model: GMM The moment conditions are ( ) ( ) E g t (α, β) = E ε t = E (Rt e α β ) = n(+k ) 6 (333) A nk n(+k ) ḡ(β) = nk (336) For instance, to get the classical LS estimator without intercepts we specify ( ) A = nk n I nk E (Rt e β ) (337) Example (Moment condition with two assets and two factors) The moment conditions for n = 2 and K = 2 are Rt e α β β 2 f 2t R2t e α 2 β 2 β 22 f 2t (R E g t (α, β) = E t e α β β 2 f 2t ) (R2t e α = 2 β 2 β 22 f 2t ) 6 f 2t (Rt e α β β 2 f 2t ) f 2t (R2t e α 2 β 2 β 22 f 2t ) Restricting α = α 2 = gives the moment conditions for the overidentified case 343 Empirical Evidence Fama and French (993) also try a multi-factor model They find that a three-factor model fits the 25 stock portfolios fairly well (two more factors are needed to also fit the seven 7
10 bond portfolios that they use) The three factors are: the market return, the return on a portfolio of small stocks minus the return on a portfolio of big stocks (SMB), and the return on a portfolio with high BE/ME minus the return on portfolio with low BE/ME (HML) This three-factor model is rejected at traditional significance levels (see Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) Table 6 or Fama and French (993) Table 9c), but it can still capture a fair amount ohe variation of expected returns (see Cochrane (2) 22, Figures 22 3) 344 Coding ohe GMM Problem This section describes how the GMM problem can be programmed We treat the case with n assets and K Factors (which are all excess returns) The moments are ohe form ( ) g t = (Rt e α β ) (338) g t = ( (R e t β ) for the exactly identified and overidentified case respectively We want to write the moments on the form ) (339) g t = z t ( yt x t b), (34) to make it easy to use matrix algrebra in the calcuation ohe estimate In that case we could let zy = T z t y t and zx = T t= z t x t, so T t= In the exactly identified case, we then have g t = zy zx b (34) t= ḡ t = zy zx b =, so ˆb = zx zy (342) (It is straightforward to show that this can also be calculated equation by equation) In the 8 overidentified case with a weighting matrix, the loss function can be written ḡ W ḡ = ( zy zx b) W ( zy zx b), so zx W zy zx W zx ˆb = and ˆb = ( zx W zx) zx W zy (343) In the overidentified case when we premultiply the moment conditions by A, we get Aḡ = A zy A zx b =, so b = (A zx ) A zy (344) In practice, we never perform an explicit inversion it is typically much better (in terms of both speed and precision) to let the software solve the system of linear equations instead It is straightforward to show that this works nice if we write the moment conditions as ( ) ( ) g t = I n f t Re t I n b f, with b = vec(α, β) t }{{}}{{} (345) z t x t ( ) g t = I n Rt e ( f ) t I n b, with b = vec(β) }{{}}{{} x t z t (346) for the exactly identified and overidentified case respectively Clearly, z t and x t are matrices, not vectors (z t is n( + K ) n and either ohe same dimension or has one row less) Example 2 (Rewriting the moment conditions) For the moment conditions in Example we have g t (α, β) = f 2t f 2t R e t R e 2t f 2t f 2t α α 2 β β 2 β 2 β 22 Proof (of 345))From the properties of Kronecker products, we know that (i) vec( ABC) = (C A)vec(B); and (ii) if a is m and c is n, then a c = (a I n )c The first 9
11 rule allows to write ( ) α + β = I n α β as I n vec( α β ) }{{}}{{} x t b The second rule allows us two write ( ) (Rt e α β ) as I n (Rt e α β ) } {{ } z t (For the exactly identified case, we could also use the fact (A B) = A B to notice that z t = x t ) Remark 3 ( Quick matrix calculations of zx and zy ) Although a loop wouldn t take too long time to calculate zx and zy, there is a quicker way Put in row t ohe matrix Z T (+K ) and Rt e in row t ohe matrix R T n For the exactly identified case, let X = Z For the overidentified case, put in row t ohe matrix X T K Then, calculate zx = (Z X/T ) I n and vec(r Z/T ) = zy 35 Testing Multi-Factor Models (General Factors) Reference: Cochrane (2) 22; Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) 623 and GMM Estimation with General Factors Linear factor models imply that all expected excess returns are linear functions ohe same vector of factor risk premia E where β is n K E Rit e = β iλ, where λ is K, for i =, n, or (347) β β K λ =, or β n β nk R e t R e nt λ K E R e t = βλ, (348) The old way oesting this is to do a two-step estimation: first, estimate the β i vectors in a time series model like (332) (equation by equation); second, use ˆβ i as regressors in a regression equation ohe type (347) with a residual added T t= Re it /T = ˆβ i λ + u i (349) It is then tested if u i = for all assets i =,, n This approach is often called a crosssectional regression while the previous tests are called time series regression The main problem ohe cross-sectional approach is that we have to account for the fact that the regressors in the second step, ˆβ i, are just estimates and therefore contain estimation errors This errors-in-variables problem is likely to have two effects (i) it gives a downwards bias ohe estimates of λ and an upward bias ohe mean ohe fitted residuals; and (ii) invalidates the standard expression ohe test of λ A way to handle these problems is to combine the moment conditions for the regression function (333) (to estimate β) with (348) (to estimate λ) to get a joint system (Rt e α β ) E g t (α, β, λ) = E = n(+k +) (35) Rt e βλ We can then test the overidentifying restrictions ohe model There are n( + K + ) moment condition (for each asset we have one moment condition for the constant, K moment conditions for the K factors, and one moment condition corresponding to the 2 2
12 restriction on the linear factor model) There are only n( + K ) + K parameters (n in α, nk in β and K in λ) We therefore have n K overidentifying restrictions which can be tested with a chi-square test Notice that this is a non-linear estimation problem, since the parameters in β multiply the parameters in λ From the GMM estimation using (35) we get estimates ohe factor risk premia and also the variance-covariance ohem This allows us to characterize the risk factors and to test ihey are priced (each ohem or perhaps all jointly) by using a Wald test Example 4 (Two assets and one factor) we have the moment conditions Rt e α β R2t e α 2 β 2 (R E g t (α, α 2, β, β 2, λ) = E t e α β ) (R2t e α = 6 2 β 2 ) Rt e β λ R2t e β 2λ There are then 6 moment conditions and 5 parameters, so there is one overidentifying restriction to test Note that with one factor, then we need at least two assets for this testing approach to work (n K = 2 ) In general, we need at least one more asset than factors 352 Traditional Cross-Sectional Regressions as Special Cases Instead of specifying a weighting matrix, we could combine the moment equations so they become equal to the number of parameters, for instance by specifying a matrix A and combine as A E g t = This does not generate any overidentifying restrictions, but it still allows us to test hypothesis about λ One possibility is to let the upper left block of A be an identity matrix and just combine the last n moment conditions, R e t βλ, to just K moment conditions I n(+k ) n(+k ) n K n(+k ) θ K n (Rt e α β ) E = n(+k ) (35) Rt e βλ (Rt e α β ) E = (352) θ(rt e βλ) In this case, we can estiumate α and β with LS equation by equation as a standard timeseries regression of a factor model To estimate the K vector λ, notice that we can solve the 2nd set of moment conditions as θ E(R e t βλ) = K or λ = (θβ) θ E R e t, (353) which is just like a cross-sectional instrumental variables regression of E R e t = βλ (with β being the regressors, θ the instruments, and E R e t the dependent variable) With θ = β, we get the traditional cross-sectional approach (347) The only difference is we here take the uncertainty about the generated betas into account (in the testing) With Alternatively, let be the covariance matrix ohe residuals from the time-series estimation ohe factor model Then, using θ = β gives a traditional GLS cross-sectional approach Example 5 (LS cross-sectional regression) With the moment conditions in Example (4) and the weighting vector θ = β, β 2 we get Rt e α β R 2t e α 2 β 2 E g t (α, α 2, β, β 2, λ) = E (Rt e α β ) = 5, (R2t e α 2 β 2 ) β (Rt e β λ) + β 2 (R2t e β 2λ) which has as many parameters as moment conditions 22 23
13 353 Alternative Formulation of Moment Conditions using α = β(λ E ) The test ohe general multi-factor models is sometimes written on a slightly different form (see, for instance, Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) 623, but adjust for the fact that they look at returns rather than excess returns) To illustrate this, note that the regression equations (332) imply that E R e t = α + β E (354) Equate the expected returns in the two formulations (354) and (347) to get α = β(λ E ), (355) which is another way of summarizing the restrictions that the linear factor model gives We can then rewrite the moment conditions (35) as (substitute for α and skip the last set of moments) E g t (β, λ) = E (R e t β(λ E ) β ) = n(+k ) (356) Note that there are n( + K ) moment conditions and nk + K parameters (nk in β and K in λ), so there are n K overidentifying restrictions (as before) Example 6 Two assets and one factor) Use the restrictions (355) in the moment conditions for that case (compare with (39)) to get Rt e β (λ E ) β E g t (β, β 2, λ) = E R2t e β 2(λ E ) β 2 Rt e β (λ E ) β = 4 R2t e β 2(λ E ) β 2 This gives 4 moment conditions, but only three parameters, so there is one overidentifying restriction to test just as with (35) 354 What ihe Factor is a Portfolio? It would (perhaps) be natural ihe tests discussed in this section coincided with those in Section 34 when the factors are in fact excess returns That is almost so The difference is 24 that we here estimate the K vector λ (factor risk premia) as a vector of free parameters, while the tests in Section 34 impose λ = E If we were to put this restriction on (356), then we are back to the LM test ohe multifactor model where (356) specifies n( + K ) moment conditions, but includes only nk parameters (in β) we gain one degree of freedom for every element in λ that we avoid to estimate If we do not impose the restriction λ = E, then the tests are not identical and can be expected to be a bit different (in small samples, in particular) 355 Empirical Evidence Chen, Roll, and Ross (986) use a number of macro variables as factors along with traditional market indices They find that industrial production and inflation surprises are priced factors, while the market index might not be Breeden, Gibbons, and Litzenberger (989) and Lettau and Ludvigson (2) estimate models where consumption growth is the factor with very mixed results 36 Fama-MacBeth Reference: Cochrane (2) 23; Campbell, Lo, and MacKinlay (997) 58; Fama and MacBeth (973) The Fama and MacBeth (973) approach is a bit different from the regression approaches discussed so far although is seems most related to what we discussed in Section 35 The method has three steps, described below First, estimate the betas β i (i =,, n) from (3) (this is a time-series regression) This is often done on the whole sample assuming the betas are constant Sometimes, the betas are estimated separately for different sub samples (so we could let ˆβ i carry a time subscript in the equations below) Second, run a cross sectional regression for every t That is, for period t, estimate λ t from the cross section (across the assets i =,, n) regression Rit e = λ t ˆβ i + ε it, (357) where ˆβ i are the regressors (Note the difference to the traditional cross-sectional 25
14 approach discussed in (34), where the second stage regression regressed E R e it on ˆβ i, while the Fama-French approach runs one regression for every time period) Third, estimate the time averages ˆε i = T ˆλ = T ˆε it for i =,, n, (for every asset) (358) t= ˆλ t (359) t= The second step, using ˆβ i as regressors, creates an errors-in-variables problem since ˆβ i are estimated, that is, measured with an error The effect ohis is typically to bias the estimator of λ t towards zero (and any intercept, or mean ohe residual, is biased upward) One way to minimize this problem, used by Fama and MacBeth (973), is to let the assets be portfolios of assets, for which we can expect that some ohe individual noise in the first-step regressions to average out and thereby make the measurement error in ˆβ smaller If CAPM is true, then the return of an asset is a linear function ohe market return and an error which should be uncorrelated with the errors of other assets otherwise some factor is missing Ihe portfolio consists of 2 assets with equal error variance in a CAPM regression, then we should expect the portfolio to have an error variance which is /2th as large We clearly want portfolios which have different betas, or else the second step regression (357) does not work Fama and MacBeth (973) choose to construct portfolios according to some initial estimate of asset specific betas Another way to deal with the errors-in-variables problem is adjust the tests Jagannathan and Wang (996) and Jagannathan and Wang (998) discuss the asymptotic distribution ohis estimator We can test the model by studying if ε i = (recall from (358) that ε i is the time average ohe residual for asset i, ε it ), by forming a t-test ˆε i / Std(ˆε i ) Fama and MacBeth (973) suggest that the standard deviation should be found by studying the time-variation in ˆε it In particular, they suggest that the variance of ˆε it (not ˆε i ) can be estimated by the (average) squared variation around its mean Since ˆε i is the sample average of ˆε it, the variance ohe former is the variance ohe latter divided by T (the sample size) provided ˆε it is iid That is, Var(ˆε i ) = T Var(ˆε it) = T 2 A similar argument leads to the variance of ˆλ Var(ˆλ) = T 2 ) 2 (ˆεit ˆε i (36) t= (ˆλ t ˆλ) 2 (362) t= Fama and MacBeth (973) found, among other things, that the squared beta is not significant in the second step regression, nor is a measure of non-systematic risk Var(ˆε it ) = T ) 2 (ˆεit ˆε i (36) t= 26 27
15 Lettau, M, and S Ludvigson, 2, Resurrecting the (C)CAPM: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk Premia Are Time-Varying, Journal of Political Economy, 9, Bibliography MacKinlay, C, 995, Multifactor Models Do Not Explain Deviations from the CAPM, Journal of Financial Economics, 38, 3 28 Breeden, D T, M R Gibbons, and R H Litzenberger, 989, Empirical Tests ohe Consumption-Oriented CAPM, Journal of Finance, 44, Campbell, J Y, A W Lo, and A C MacKinlay, 997, The Econometrics of Financial Markets, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey Chen, N-F, R Roll, and S A Ross, 986, Economic Forces and the Stock Market, Journal of Business, 59, Cochrane, J H, 2, Asset Pricing, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey Fama, E, and J MacBeth, 973, Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests, Journal of Political Economy, 7, Fama, E F, and K R French, 993, Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds, Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3 56 Fama, E F, and K R French, 996, Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies, Journal of Finance, 5, Gibbons, M, S Ross, and J Shanken, 989, A Test ohe Efficiency of a Given Portfolio, Econometrica, 57, 2 52 Greene, W H, 23, Econometric Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 5th edn Jagannathan, R, and Z Wang, 996, The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expectd Returns, Journal of Finance, 5, 3 53 Jagannathan, R, and Z Wang, 998, A Note on the Asymptotic Covariance in Fama- MacBeth Regression, Journal of Finance, 53,
Multivariate Tests of the CAPM under Normality
Multivariate Tests of the CAPM under Normality Bernt Arne Ødegaard 6 June 018 Contents 1 Multivariate Tests of the CAPM 1 The Gibbons (198) paper, how to formulate the multivariate model 1 3 Multivariate
More informationFinancial Econometrics Lecture 6: Testing the CAPM model
Financial Econometrics Lecture 6: Testing the CAPM model Richard G. Pierse 1 Introduction The capital asset pricing model has some strong implications which are testable. The restrictions that can be tested
More informationASSET PRICING MODELS
ASSE PRICING MODELS [1] CAPM (1) Some notation: R it = (gross) return on asset i at time t. R mt = (gross) return on the market portfolio at time t. R ft = return on risk-free asset at time t. X it = R
More informationR = µ + Bf Arbitrage Pricing Model, APM
4.2 Arbitrage Pricing Model, APM Empirical evidence indicates that the CAPM beta does not completely explain the cross section of expected asset returns. This suggests that additional factors may be required.
More informationRoss (1976) introduced the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) as an alternative to the CAPM.
4.2 Arbitrage Pricing Model, APM Empirical evidence indicates that the CAPM beta does not completely explain the cross section of expected asset returns. This suggests that additional factors may be required.
More informationLinear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns
Linear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns Cisil Sarisoy a,, Peter de Goeij b, Bas J.M. Werker c a Department of Finance, CentER, Tilburg University b Department of Finance, Tilburg University
More informationFactor Models for Asset Returns. Prof. Daniel P. Palomar
Factor Models for Asset Returns Prof. Daniel P. Palomar The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) MAFS6010R- Portfolio Optimization with R MSc in Financial Mathematics Fall 2018-19, HKUST,
More informationSpecification Test Based on the Hansen-Jagannathan Distance with Good Small Sample Properties
Specification Test Based on the Hansen-Jagannathan Distance with Good Small Sample Properties Yu Ren Department of Economics Queen s University Katsumi Shimotsu Department of Economics Queen s University
More informationZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences. Bachelor s Thesis Estimating Multi-Beta Pricing Models With or Without an Intercept:
ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences School of Management and Law Bachelor s Thesis Estimating Multi-Beta Pricing Models With or Without an Intercept: Further Results from Simulations Submitted by:
More informationGMM - Generalized method of moments
GMM - Generalized method of moments GMM Intuition: Matching moments You want to estimate properties of a data set {x t } T t=1. You assume that x t has a constant mean and variance. x t (µ 0, σ 2 ) Consider
More informationA new test on the conditional capital asset pricing model
Appl. Math. J. Chinese Univ. 2015, 30(2): 163-186 A new test on the conditional capital asset pricing model LI Xia-fei 1 CAI Zong-wu 2,1 REN Yu 1, Abstract. Testing the validity of the conditional capital
More informationLinear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns
Linear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns Cisil Sarisoy, Peter de Goeij and Bas Werker DP 03/2016-020 Linear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns Cisil Sarisoy a,, Peter
More informationLinear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns
Linear Factor Models and the Estimation of Expected Returns Abstract Standard factor models in asset pricing imply a linear relationship between expected returns on assets and their exposures to one or
More informationNotes on empirical methods
Notes on empirical methods Statistics of time series and cross sectional regressions 1. Time Series Regression (Fama-French). (a) Method: Run and interpret (b) Estimates: 1. ˆα, ˆβ : OLS TS regression.
More informationEcon 583 Final Exam Fall 2008
Econ 583 Final Exam Fall 2008 Eric Zivot December 11, 2008 Exam is due at 9:00 am in my office on Friday, December 12. 1 Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Asymptotic Theory Let X 1,...,X n be iid random
More informationMultivariate GARCH models.
Multivariate GARCH models. Financial market volatility moves together over time across assets and markets. Recognizing this commonality through a multivariate modeling framework leads to obvious gains
More informationThe Slow Convergence of OLS Estimators of α, β and Portfolio. β and Portfolio Weights under Long Memory Stochastic Volatility
The Slow Convergence of OLS Estimators of α, β and Portfolio Weights under Long Memory Stochastic Volatility New York University Stern School of Business June 21, 2018 Introduction Bivariate long memory
More informationUsing Bootstrap to Test Portfolio Efficiency *
ANNALS OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 2, 217 249 (2006) Using Bootstrap to est Portfolio Efficiency * Pin-Huang Chou National Central University, aiwan E-mail: choup@cc.ncu.edu.tw and Guofu Zhou Washington University
More information14 Week 5 Empirical methods notes
14 Week 5 Empirical methods notes 1. Motivation and overview 2. Time series regressions 3. Cross sectional regressions 4. Fama MacBeth 5. Testing factor models. 14.1 Motivation and Overview 1. Expected
More informationInference on Risk Premia in the Presence of Omitted Factors
Inference on Risk Premia in the Presence of Omitted Factors Stefano Giglio Dacheng Xiu Booth School of Business, University of Chicago Center for Financial and Risk Analytics Stanford University May 19,
More informationRegression: Ordinary Least Squares
Regression: Ordinary Least Squares Mark Hendricks Autumn 2017 FINM Intro: Regression Outline Regression OLS Mathematics Linear Projection Hendricks, Autumn 2017 FINM Intro: Regression: Lecture 2/32 Regression
More informationMFE Financial Econometrics 2018 Final Exam Model Solutions
MFE Financial Econometrics 2018 Final Exam Model Solutions Tuesday 12 th March, 2019 1. If (X, ε) N (0, I 2 ) what is the distribution of Y = µ + β X + ε? Y N ( µ, β 2 + 1 ) 2. What is the Cramer-Rao lower
More informationAsset Pricing with Consumption and Robust Inference
Asset Pricing with Consumption and Robust Inference Frank Kleibergen Zhaoguo Zhan January 9, 28 Abstract Alongside the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), we consider four consumption measures
More informationFinancial Econometrics Return Predictability
Financial Econometrics Return Predictability Eric Zivot March 30, 2011 Lecture Outline Market Efficiency The Forms of the Random Walk Hypothesis Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis Reading FMUND, chapter
More informationEconometrics of Panel Data
Econometrics of Panel Data Jakub Mućk Meeting # 6 Jakub Mućk Econometrics of Panel Data Meeting # 6 1 / 36 Outline 1 The First-Difference (FD) estimator 2 Dynamic panel data models 3 The Anderson and Hsiao
More informationChapter 11 GMM: General Formulas and Application
Chapter 11 GMM: General Formulas and Application Main Content General GMM Formulas esting Moments Standard Errors of Anything by Delta Method Using GMM for Regressions Prespecified weighting Matrices and
More informationPredicting bond returns using the output gap in expansions and recessions
Erasmus university Rotterdam Erasmus school of economics Bachelor Thesis Quantitative finance Predicting bond returns using the output gap in expansions and recessions Author: Martijn Eertman Studentnumber:
More informationModel Mis-specification
Model Mis-specification Carlo Favero Favero () Model Mis-specification 1 / 28 Model Mis-specification Each specification can be interpreted of the result of a reduction process, what happens if the reduction
More informationIn modern portfolio theory, which started with the seminal work of Markowitz (1952),
1 Introduction In modern portfolio theory, which started with the seminal work of Markowitz (1952), many academic researchers have examined the relationships between the return and risk, or volatility,
More informationThe regression model with one fixed regressor cont d
The regression model with one fixed regressor cont d 3150/4150 Lecture 4 Ragnar Nymoen 27 January 2012 The model with transformed variables Regression with transformed variables I References HGL Ch 2.8
More informationPanel Data Models. James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley
Panel Data Models James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley Overview Like Zellner s seemingly unrelated regression models, the dependent and explanatory variables for panel
More informationZellner s Seemingly Unrelated Regressions Model. James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley
Zellner s Seemingly Unrelated Regressions Model James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley Overview The seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) model, proposed by Zellner,
More informationEmpirical Methods in Finance Section 2 - The CAPM Model
Empirical Methods in Finance Section 2 - The CAPM Model René Garcia Professor of finance EDHEC Nice, March 2010 Estimation and Testing The CAPM model is a one-period model E [Z i ] = β im E [Z m] with
More informationBootstrap tests of mean-variance efficiency with multiple portfolio groupings
Bootstrap tests of mean-variance efficiency with multiple portfolio groupings Sermin Gungor Bank of Canada Richard Luger Université Laval August 25, 2014 ABSTRACT We propose double bootstrap methods to
More informationChapter 15 Panel Data Models. Pooling Time-Series and Cross-Section Data
Chapter 5 Panel Data Models Pooling Time-Series and Cross-Section Data Sets of Regression Equations The topic can be introduced wh an example. A data set has 0 years of time series data (from 935 to 954)
More informationA Non-Parametric Approach of Heteroskedasticity Robust Estimation of Vector-Autoregressive (VAR) Models
Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, vol.1, no.1, 2012, 55-67 ISSN: 2241-0988 (print version), 2241-0996 (online) International Scientific Press, 2012 A Non-Parametric Approach of Heteroskedasticity
More informationEconomic modelling and forecasting
Economic modelling and forecasting 2-6 February 2015 Bank of England he generalised method of moments Ole Rummel Adviser, CCBS at the Bank of England ole.rummel@bankofengland.co.uk Outline Classical estimation
More informationLecture 4: Heteroskedasticity
Lecture 4: Heteroskedasticity Econometric Methods Warsaw School of Economics (4) Heteroskedasticity 1 / 24 Outline 1 What is heteroskedasticity? 2 Testing for heteroskedasticity White Goldfeld-Quandt Breusch-Pagan
More informationGMM and SMM. 1. Hansen, L Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators, Econometrica, 50, p
GMM and SMM Some useful references: 1. Hansen, L. 1982. Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators, Econometrica, 50, p. 1029-54. 2. Lee, B.S. and B. Ingram. 1991 Simulation estimation
More informationEcon671 Factor Models: Principal Components
Econ671 Factor Models: Principal Components Jun YU April 8, 2016 Jun YU () Econ671 Factor Models: Principal Components April 8, 2016 1 / 59 Factor Models: Principal Components Learning Objectives 1. Show
More informationInstrumental Variables, Simultaneous and Systems of Equations
Chapter 6 Instrumental Variables, Simultaneous and Systems of Equations 61 Instrumental variables In the linear regression model y i = x iβ + ε i (61) we have been assuming that bf x i and ε i are uncorrelated
More informationFinancial Econometrics
Financial Econometrics Estimation and Inference Gerald P. Dwyer Trinity College, Dublin January 2013 Who am I? Visiting Professor and BB&T Scholar at Clemson University Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
More informationA Bootstrap Test for Causality with Endogenous Lag Length Choice. - theory and application in finance
CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series Paper No. 223 A Bootstrap Test for Causality with Endogenous Lag Length Choice - theory and application in finance R. Scott Hacker and Abdulnasser Hatemi-J April 200
More informationUniform Inference for Conditional Factor Models with Instrumental and Idiosyncratic Betas
Uniform Inference for Conditional Factor Models with Instrumental and Idiosyncratic Betas Yuan Xiye Yang Rutgers University Dec 27 Greater NY Econometrics Overview main results Introduction Consider a
More informationEconometrics of Panel Data
Econometrics of Panel Data Jakub Mućk Meeting # 2 Jakub Mućk Econometrics of Panel Data Meeting # 2 1 / 26 Outline 1 Fixed effects model The Least Squares Dummy Variable Estimator The Fixed Effect (Within
More informationChapter 1. GMM: Basic Concepts
Chapter 1. GMM: Basic Concepts Contents 1 Motivating Examples 1 1.1 Instrumental variable estimator....................... 1 1.2 Estimating parameters in monetary policy rules.............. 2 1.3 Estimating
More informationAn Introduction to Generalized Method of Moments. Chen,Rong aronge.net
An Introduction to Generalized Method of Moments Chen,Rong http:// aronge.net Asset Pricing, 2012 Section 1 WHY GMM? 2 Empirical Studies 3 Econometric Estimation Strategies 4 5 Maximum Likelihood Estimation
More informationVector Autoregressive Model. Vector Autoregressions II. Estimation of Vector Autoregressions II. Estimation of Vector Autoregressions I.
Vector Autoregressive Model Vector Autoregressions II Empirical Macroeconomics - Lect 2 Dr. Ana Beatriz Galvao Queen Mary University of London January 2012 A VAR(p) model of the m 1 vector of time series
More informationGeneralized Method Of Moments (GMM)
Chapter 6 Generalized Method Of Moments GMM) Note: The primary reference text for these notes is Hall 005). Alternative, but less comprehensive, treatments can be found in chapter 14 of Hamilton 1994)
More informationPanel Data Models. Chapter 5. Financial Econometrics. Michael Hauser WS17/18 1 / 63
1 / 63 Panel Data Models Chapter 5 Financial Econometrics Michael Hauser WS17/18 2 / 63 Content Data structures: Times series, cross sectional, panel data, pooled data Static linear panel data models:
More informationErrata for Campbell, Financial Decisions and Markets, 01/02/2019.
Errata for Campbell, Financial Decisions and Markets, 01/02/2019. Page xi, section title for Section 11.4.3 should be Endogenous Margin Requirements. Page 20, equation 1.49), expectations operator E should
More informationA Skeptical Appraisal of Asset-Pricing Tests
A Skeptical Appraisal of Asset-Pricing Tests Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth and NBER jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu Stefan Nagel Stanford and NBER nagel_stefan@gsb.stanford.edu Jay Shanken Emory and NBER jay_shanken@bus.emory.edu
More informationEconomics 583: Econometric Theory I A Primer on Asymptotics
Economics 583: Econometric Theory I A Primer on Asymptotics Eric Zivot January 14, 2013 The two main concepts in asymptotic theory that we will use are Consistency Asymptotic Normality Intuition consistency:
More informationUnexplained factors and their effects on second pass R-squared s
Unexplained factors and their effects on second pass R-squared s Frank Kleibergen Zhaoguo Zhan November 6, 14 Abstract We construct the large sample distributions of the OLS and GLS R s of the second pass
More informationEconometrics I KS. Module 2: Multivariate Linear Regression. Alexander Ahammer. This version: April 16, 2018
Econometrics I KS Module 2: Multivariate Linear Regression Alexander Ahammer Department of Economics Johannes Kepler University of Linz This version: April 16, 2018 Alexander Ahammer (JKU) Module 2: Multivariate
More informationUnexplained factors and their effects on second pass R-squared's and t-tests Kleibergen, F.R.; Zhan, Z.
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Unexplained factors and their effects on second pass R-squared's and t-tests Kleibergen, F.R.; Zhan, Z. Link to publication Citation for published version (APA):
More informationVolume 30, Issue 1. Measuring the Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution for Consumption: Some Evidence from Japan
Volume 30, Issue 1 Measuring the Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution for Consumption: Some Evidence from Japan Akihiko Noda Graduate School of Business and Commerce, Keio University Shunsuke Sugiyama
More informationECON4515 Finance theory 1 Diderik Lund, 5 May Perold: The CAPM
Perold: The CAPM Perold starts with a historical background, the development of portfolio theory and the CAPM. Points out that until 1950 there was no theory to describe the equilibrium determination of
More informationECON 4160, Spring term 2015 Lecture 7
ECON 4160, Spring term 2015 Lecture 7 Identification and estimation of SEMs (Part 1) Ragnar Nymoen Department of Economics 8 Oct 2015 1 / 55 HN Ch 15 References to Davidson and MacKinnon, Ch 8.1-8.5 Ch
More informationEconometrics. Week 4. Fall Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague
Econometrics Week 4 Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague Fall 2012 1 / 23 Recommended Reading For the today Serial correlation and heteroskedasticity in
More informationAnswers to Problem Set #4
Answers to Problem Set #4 Problems. Suppose that, from a sample of 63 observations, the least squares estimates and the corresponding estimated variance covariance matrix are given by: bβ bβ 2 bβ 3 = 2
More informationFinal Exam November 24, Problem-1: Consider random walk with drift plus a linear time trend: ( t
Problem-1: Consider random walk with drift plus a linear time trend: y t = c + y t 1 + δ t + ϵ t, (1) where {ϵ t } is white noise with E[ϵ 2 t ] = σ 2 >, and y is a non-stochastic initial value. (a) Show
More informationECON 4551 Econometrics II Memorial University of Newfoundland. Panel Data Models. Adapted from Vera Tabakova s notes
ECON 4551 Econometrics II Memorial University of Newfoundland Panel Data Models Adapted from Vera Tabakova s notes 15.1 Grunfeld s Investment Data 15.2 Sets of Regression Equations 15.3 Seemingly Unrelated
More informationEcon 423 Lecture Notes: Additional Topics in Time Series 1
Econ 423 Lecture Notes: Additional Topics in Time Series 1 John C. Chao April 25, 2017 1 These notes are based in large part on Chapter 16 of Stock and Watson (2011). They are for instructional purposes
More informationEconometrics II - EXAM Answer each question in separate sheets in three hours
Econometrics II - EXAM Answer each question in separate sheets in three hours. Let u and u be jointly Gaussian and independent of z in all the equations. a Investigate the identification of the following
More informationLarge Sample Properties of Estimators in the Classical Linear Regression Model
Large Sample Properties of Estimators in the Classical Linear Regression Model 7 October 004 A. Statement of the classical linear regression model The classical linear regression model can be written in
More informationII.2. Empirical Testing for Asset Pricing Models. 2.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM
II.2. Empirical Testing for Asset Pricing Models 2.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM Roots of CAPM are in the Markowitz (mean variance) portfolio theory in the 1950 s. CAPM is credited to Sharpe,
More informationNetwork Connectivity and Systematic Risk
Network Connectivity and Systematic Risk Monica Billio 1 Massimiliano Caporin 2 Roberto Panzica 3 Loriana Pelizzon 1,3 1 University Ca Foscari Venezia (Italy) 2 University of Padova (Italy) 3 Goethe University
More information1 Outline. 1. Motivation. 2. SUR model. 3. Simultaneous equations. 4. Estimation
1 Outline. 1. Motivation 2. SUR model 3. Simultaneous equations 4. Estimation 2 Motivation. In this chapter, we will study simultaneous systems of econometric equations. Systems of simultaneous equations
More informationReliability of inference (1 of 2 lectures)
Reliability of inference (1 of 2 lectures) Ragnar Nymoen University of Oslo 5 March 2013 1 / 19 This lecture (#13 and 14): I The optimality of the OLS estimators and tests depend on the assumptions of
More informationDrawing Inferences from Statistics Based on Multiyear Asset Returns
Drawing Inferences from Statistics Based on Multiyear Asset Returns Matthew Richardson ames H. Stock FE 1989 1 Motivation Fama and French (1988, Poterba and Summer (1988 document significant negative correlations
More information(θ θ ), θ θ = 2 L(θ ) θ θ θ θ θ (θ )= H θθ (θ ) 1 d θ (θ )
Setting RHS to be zero, 0= (θ )+ 2 L(θ ) (θ θ ), θ θ = 2 L(θ ) 1 (θ )= H θθ (θ ) 1 d θ (θ ) O =0 θ 1 θ 3 θ 2 θ Figure 1: The Newton-Raphson Algorithm where H is the Hessian matrix, d θ is the derivative
More informationMS&E 226: Small Data
MS&E 226: Small Data Lecture 15: Examples of hypothesis tests (v5) Ramesh Johari ramesh.johari@stanford.edu 1 / 32 The recipe 2 / 32 The hypothesis testing recipe In this lecture we repeatedly apply the
More informationImprovement in Finite Sample Properties of the. Hansen-Jagannathan Distance Test
Improvement in Finite Sample Properties of the Hansen-Jagannathan Distance Test Yu Ren Katsumi Shimotsu March 21, 2007 The authors thank Christopher Gadarowski for providing the dataset for calibrating
More informationIntroductory Econometrics
Based on the textbook by Wooldridge: : A Modern Approach Robert M. Kunst robert.kunst@univie.ac.at University of Vienna and Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna November 23, 2013 Outline Introduction
More informationRegression Analysis. y t = β 1 x t1 + β 2 x t2 + β k x tk + ϵ t, t = 1,..., T,
Regression Analysis The multiple linear regression model with k explanatory variables assumes that the tth observation of the dependent or endogenous variable y t is described by the linear relationship
More informationBeta Is Alive, Well and Healthy
Beta Is Alive, Well and Healthy Soosung Hwang * Cass Business School, UK Abstract In this study I suggest some evidence that the popular cross-sectional asset pricing test proposed by Black, Jensen, and
More informationProblem Set #6: OLS. Economics 835: Econometrics. Fall 2012
Problem Set #6: OLS Economics 835: Econometrics Fall 202 A preliminary result Suppose we have a random sample of size n on the scalar random variables (x, y) with finite means, variances, and covariance.
More informationAdvanced Econometrics
Advanced Econometrics Dr. Andrea Beccarini Center for Quantitative Economics Winter 2013/2014 Andrea Beccarini (CQE) Econometrics Winter 2013/2014 1 / 156 General information Aims and prerequisites Objective:
More informationArma-Arch Modeling Of The Returns Of First Bank Of Nigeria
Arma-Arch Modeling Of The Returns Of First Bank Of Nigeria Emmanuel Alphonsus Akpan Imoh Udo Moffat Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Uyo, Nigeria Ntiedo Bassey Ekpo Department of
More informationEconometrics for PhDs
Econometrics for PhDs Amine Ouazad April 2012, Final Assessment - Answer Key 1 Questions with a require some Stata in the answer. Other questions do not. 1 Ordinary Least Squares: Equality of Estimates
More informationSpring 2017 Econ 574 Roger Koenker. Lecture 14 GEE-GMM
University of Illinois Department of Economics Spring 2017 Econ 574 Roger Koenker Lecture 14 GEE-GMM Throughout the course we have emphasized methods of estimation and inference based on the principle
More informationHeteroscedasticity and Autocorrelation
Heteroscedasticity and Autocorrelation Carlo Favero Favero () Heteroscedasticity and Autocorrelation 1 / 17 Heteroscedasticity, Autocorrelation, and the GLS estimator Let us reconsider the single equation
More informationEstimating Deep Parameters: GMM and SMM
Estimating Deep Parameters: GMM and SMM 1 Parameterizing a Model Calibration Choose parameters from micro or other related macro studies (e.g. coeffi cient of relative risk aversion is 2). SMM with weighting
More informationAPT looking for the factors
APT looking for the factors February 5, 2018 Contents 1 the Arbitrage Pricing Theory 2 1.1 One factor models............................................... 2 1.2 2 factor models.................................................
More informationTests of the Present-Value Model of the Current Account: A Note
Tests of the Present-Value Model of the Current Account: A Note Hafedh Bouakez Takashi Kano March 5, 2007 Abstract Using a Monte Carlo approach, we evaluate the small-sample properties of four different
More informationAn overview of applied econometrics
An overview of applied econometrics Jo Thori Lind September 4, 2011 1 Introduction This note is intended as a brief overview of what is necessary to read and understand journal articles with empirical
More informationEconometrics. Week 8. Fall Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague
Econometrics Week 8 Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague Fall 2012 1 / 25 Recommended Reading For the today Instrumental Variables Estimation and Two Stage
More informationSection 3: Simple Linear Regression
Section 3: Simple Linear Regression Carlos M. Carvalho The University of Texas at Austin McCombs School of Business http://faculty.mccombs.utexas.edu/carlos.carvalho/teaching/ 1 Regression: General Introduction
More informationProbabilities & Statistics Revision
Probabilities & Statistics Revision Christopher Ting Christopher Ting http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/christophert/ : christopherting@smu.edu.sg : 6828 0364 : LKCSB 5036 January 6, 2017 Christopher Ting QF
More informationTESTING FOR CO-INTEGRATION
Bo Sjö 2010-12-05 TESTING FOR CO-INTEGRATION To be used in combination with Sjö (2008) Testing for Unit Roots and Cointegration A Guide. Instructions: Use the Johansen method to test for Purchasing Power
More informationBootstrapping Heteroskedasticity Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator
Bootstrapping Heteroskedasticity Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator by Emmanuel Flachaire Eurequa, University Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne December 2001 Abstract Recent results of Cribari-Neto and Zarkos
More informationEquity risk factors and the Intertemporal CAPM
Equity risk factors and the Intertemporal CAPM Ilan Cooper 1 Paulo Maio 2 1 Norwegian Business School (BI) 2 Hanken School of Economics BEROC Conference, Minsk Outline 1 Motivation 2 Cross-sectional tests
More informationThe Bootstrap: Theory and Applications. Biing-Shen Kuo National Chengchi University
The Bootstrap: Theory and Applications Biing-Shen Kuo National Chengchi University Motivation: Poor Asymptotic Approximation Most of statistical inference relies on asymptotic theory. Motivation: Poor
More informationCh 2: Simple Linear Regression
Ch 2: Simple Linear Regression 1. Simple Linear Regression Model A simple regression model with a single regressor x is y = β 0 + β 1 x + ɛ, where we assume that the error ɛ is independent random component
More informationAnalysis of Cross-Sectional Data
Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data Kevin Sheppard http://www.kevinsheppard.com Oxford MFE This version: November 8, 2017 November 13 14, 2017 Outline Econometric models Specification that can be analyzed
More informationIncreasing the Power of Specification Tests. November 18, 2018
Increasing the Power of Specification Tests T W J A. H U A MIT November 18, 2018 A. This paper shows how to increase the power of Hausman s (1978) specification test as well as the difference test in a
More informationSpecification Test for Instrumental Variables Regression with Many Instruments
Specification Test for Instrumental Variables Regression with Many Instruments Yoonseok Lee and Ryo Okui April 009 Preliminary; comments are welcome Abstract This paper considers specification testing
More informationThe outline for Unit 3
The outline for Unit 3 Unit 1. Introduction: The regression model. Unit 2. Estimation principles. Unit 3: Hypothesis testing principles. 3.1 Wald test. 3.2 Lagrange Multiplier. 3.3 Likelihood Ratio Test.
More information