Abstract
This paper shows that some of the most prominent risk-based theories offered as explanation for the value premium are at odds with data. The models proposed by Fama and French (1993), Lettau and Ludvingson (2001), Campbell and Vuolteenaho (2004), and Yogo (2006) can capture the cross section of returns of portfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and size, but not of portfolios sorted on book-to-market ratio and institutional ownership. These models generate economically large pricing errors in all the institutional ownership quintiles and each statistical test indicates that these pricing errors are significant. More generally, these results show that a minor alteration of the test assets can lead to a dramatically different answer regarding the validity of a given asset pricing model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
