Abstract
AbstractWe use Australian data to test the Conditional Capital Asset Pricing Model (Jagannathan and Wang, 1996). Our results are generally supportive: the model performs well compared with a number of competing asset pricing models. In contrast to the study by Jagannathan and Wang, however, we find that the inclusion of the market for human capital does not save the concept of the time‐independent market beta (it remains insignificant). We find support for the role of a small‐minus‐big factor in pricing the cross‐section of returns and find grounds to disagree with Jagannathan and Wang's argument that this factor proxies for misspecified market risk.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call