In the recent finance literature it is suggested that asset prices are fairly
well described by a so-called factor model, where excess returns are linearly
explained from excess returns on a number of 'factor portfolios'. As in the
CAPM, the intercept term should be zero, just like the coefficient for any
other variable included in the model the value of which is known in advance
(e.g. a January dummy). The data set ASSETS contains excess returns on four
factor portfolios for January 1960 to December 2010: \(\underline{26}\)
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
r m r f: & \text { excess return on a value-weighted market proxy } \\
s m b: & \text { return on a small-stock portfolio minus the return } \\
& \text { on a large-stock portfolio (Small minus Big) } \\
h m l: & \text { return on a value-stock portfolio minus the return } \\
& \text { on a growth-stock portfolio (High minus Low) } \\
\text { umd: } & \text { return on a high prior return portfolio minus the
return } \\
& \text { on a low prior return portfolio (Up minus Down) }
\end{array}
$$
All data are for the USA. Each of the last three variables denotes the
difference in returns on two hypothetical portfolios of stocks. These
portfolios are re-formed each month on the basis of the most recent available
information on firm size, book-to-market value of equity and historical
returns respectively. The \(\mathrm{hml}\) factor is based on the ratio of book
value to market value of equity, and reflects the difference in returns
between a portfolio of stocks with a high bookto-market ratio (value stocks)
and a portfolio of stocks with a low book-to-market ratio (growth stocks). The
factors are motivated by empirically found anomalies of the CAPM (for example,
small firms appear to have higher returns than large ones, even after the CAPM
risk correction).
In addition to the excess returns on these four factors, we have observations
on the returns on ten different 'assets' which are ten portfolios of stocks,
maintained by the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). These
portfolios are size based, which means that portfolio 1 contains the \(10 \%\)
smallest firms listed at the New York Stock Exchange and portfolio 10 contains
the \(10 \%\) largest firms that are listed. Excess returns (in excess of the
riskfree rate) on these portfolios are denoted by \(r 1\) to \(r 10\)
respectively. In answering the following questions, use \(r 1, r 10\) and the
returns on two additional portfolios that you select.
(a) Regress the excess returns on your four portfolios upon the excess return
on the market portfolio (proxy), noting that this corresponds to the CAPM.
Include a constant in these regressions.
(b) Give an economic interpretation of the estimated \(\beta\) coefficients.
(c) Give an economic and a statistical interpretation of the \(R^{2}
\mathrm{~s}\).
(d) Test the hypothesis that \(\beta_{j}=1\) for each of the four portfolios.
State the assumptions you need to make for the tests to be (asymptotically)
valid.
(e) Test the validity of the CAPM by testingwhether the constant terms in the
four regressions are zero.
(f) Test for a January effect in each of the four regressions.
(g) Next, estimate the four-factor model
$$
r_{j t}=\alpha_{j}+\beta_{j 1} r m r f_{t}+\beta_{j 2} s m b_{t}+\beta_{j 3} h
m l_{t}+\beta_{j 4} u m d_{t}+\varepsilon_{j t}
$$
by OLS. Compare the estimation results with those obtained from the one-factor
(CAPM) model. Pay attention to the estimated partial slope coefficients and
the \(R^{2}\) s.
(h) Perform \(F\)-tests for the hypothesis that the coefficients for the three
new factors are jointly equal to zero.
(i) Test the validity of the four-factor model by testing whether the constant
terms in the four regressions are zero. Compare your conclusions with those
obtained from the CAPM.