Recent studies suggest that the conditional CAPM might hold, period-by-period, and that time-varying betas can explain the failures of the simple, unconditional CAPM. We argue, however, that significant departures from the unconditional CAPM would require implausibly large time-variation in betas and expected returns. Thus, the conditional CAPM is unlikely to explain asset-pricing anomalies like book-to-market and momentum. We test this conjecture empirically by directly estimating conditional alphas and betas from short-window regressions (avoiding the need to specify conditioning information). The tests show, consistent with our analytical results, that the conditional CAPM performs nearly as poorly as the unconditional CAPM.
Published: Lewellen, Jonathan & Nagel, Stefan, 2006. "The conditional CAPM does not explain asset-pricing anomalies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 289-314, November.
This paper is available as PDF (410 K) or via email.
Machine-readable bibliographic record -
MARC,
RIS,
BibTeX
