Style investing and the ICAPM

Michael Stutzer; Michael Stutzer

doi:10.3934/QFE.2018.3.702

Quantitative Finance and Economics

2018, Volume 2, Issue 3: 702-716. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.3.702

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Style investing and the ICAPM

Michael Stutzer ^,

University of Colorado Finance Dept., Boulder, CO 80309, USA

Received: 04 December 2017 Accepted: 11 January 2018 Published: 27 August 2018
JEL Codes: E21, G11, G12

Empirical multifactor models of excess returns are theoretically grounded in Merton's ICAPM. Merton modeled investors who maximize expected utility of their own consumption. Multiple priced factors arise as "hedge portfolios" most closely correlated with state variables that drive intertemporal changes in the investment opportunity set. It is puzzling that empirically useful factors have not been convincingly identified as those portfolios, despite massive e ort. But the majority of asset demand now arises from style investors, i.e. institutionally managed funds that try to either meet (index funds) or beat (actively managed) returns from style-specific benchmark portfolios. So we modify Merton's derivation to incorporate the aggregate demands derived from style investors' di erent objective functions. In addition to resolving the aforementioned puzzle, we show that this style investing version of the ICAPM is more consistent with recent empirical evidence documenting comovement among assets held in a style benchmark. Finally, the model casts doubt on the widespread belief that individual investors will necessarily benefit from funds with positive multifactor alpha.
- ICAPM,
- style investing,
- factor models,
- continuous time
Citation: Michael Stutzer. Style investing and the ICAPM[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2018, 2(3): 702-716. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.3.702

Related Papers:

Abstract

Empirical multifactor models of excess returns are theoretically grounded in Merton's ICAPM. Merton modeled investors who maximize expected utility of their own consumption. Multiple priced factors arise as "hedge portfolios" most closely correlated with state variables that drive intertemporal changes in the investment opportunity set. It is puzzling that empirically useful factors have not been convincingly identified as those portfolios, despite massive e ort. But the majority of asset demand now arises from style investors, i.e. institutionally managed funds that try to either meet (index funds) or beat (actively managed) returns from style-specific benchmark portfolios. So we modify Merton's derivation to incorporate the aggregate demands derived from style investors' di erent objective functions. In addition to resolving the aforementioned puzzle, we show that this style investing version of the ICAPM is more consistent with recent empirical evidence documenting comovement among assets held in a style benchmark. Finally, the model casts doubt on the widespread belief that individual investors will necessarily benefit from funds with positive multifactor alpha.

References

[1]	Barberis N, Shleifer A, Wurger J (2005) Comovement. J Fin Econ 75: 283–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.04.003
[2]	Becker C, Ferson W, Myers D, et al. (1999) Conditional market timing with benchmark investors. J Fin Econ 52: 119–148. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00006-9
[3]	Bielecki T, Pliska S, Sherris M (2000) Risk Sensitive Asset Allocation. J Econ Dyn Cont 24: 1145–1177. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1889(99)00017-2
[4]	Boyer B (2011) Style related comovement: Fundamentals or labels? J Fin 66: 307–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01633.x
[5]	Breeden D (1989) Intertemporal portfolio theory and asset pricing, In: Eatwell, J. Milgate, M. Newman, P. Authors, The New Palgrave: Finance. W.W. Norton.
[6]	Brennan M (1993) Agency and asset pricing. Finance Dept. working paper 6-93, Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
[7]	Buchner A, Wagner N (2016) The betting against beta anomaly: Fact or fiction? Fin Res Lett 16: 283–289. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2015.12.010
[8]	Campbell J, Lo A, MacKinlay C (1997) The Econometrics of Financial Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[9]	Carhart M (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J Fin 52: 57–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x
[10]	Cochrane J (2001) Asset Pricing, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[11]	Cremers M, Petajisto A, Zitzewitz E (2013) Should benchmark indices have alpha? Crit Fin Rev 2: 1–48. doi: 10.1561/104.00000007
[12]	Daniel K, Titman S (1997) Evidence on the characteristics of cross-sectional variation in stock returns. J Fin 52: 1–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03806.x
[13]	De GrootW, Huij J (2011) Is the value premium really a compensation for distress risk? Finance Dept., Rotterdam School of Management.
[14]	Fama E (1996) Multifactor portfolio e_ciency and multifactor asset pricing. J Fin Quant Anal 31: 441–465. doi: 10.2307/2331355
[15]	Fama E (1998) Determining the number of state variables in the ICAPM. J Fin Quant Anal 33: 217–231. doi: 10.2307/2331308
[16]	Fama E, French K (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J Fin 47: 427–465. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
[17]	Fleming W, Sheu SJ (1999) Optimal long term growth rate of expected utility of wealth. J App Prob 9: 871-903.
[18]	Gregory A, Tharyan R, Christidis A (2013) Constructing and testing alternative versions of the Fama-French and Carhart models in the U.K. J Bus Fin Acct 40: 172–214. doi: 10.1111/jbfa.12006
[19]	Grossman S, Zhou Z (1993) Optimal investment strategies for controlling drawdowns. Math Fin 3: 241–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9965.1993.tb00044.x
[20]	Harvey C, Liu Y, Zhu H (2016) ...And the cross section of expected returns. Rev Fin Stud 29: 5–68.
[21]	Hunter D, Kandel E, Kandel S, et al. (2014) Mutual fund performance evaluation with active peer benchmarks. J Fin Econ 112: 1–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.12.006
[22]	Jorion P (2003) Porfolio optimization with constraints on tracking error. Fin Anal J 58: 70–82.
[23]	Kaniel R, Cuoco D (2011) Equilibrium prices in the presence of delegated portfolio management. J Fin Econ 101: 264–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.02.012
[24]	Merton R (1990) Continuous Time Finance,Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[25]	Metrick A, Gompers P (2001) Institutional investors and equity pricing. Q J Econ 116: 229–259. doi: 10.1162/003355301556392
[26]	Nagel S (2005) Trading styles and trading volume. Finance Dept. working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford.
[27]	Novy-Marx R (2013) The other side of value: the gross profitability premium. J Fin Econ 108: 1–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.01.003
[28]	Roll R (1992) A mean/variance analysis of tracking error. J Port Mgmt 18: 13–22. doi: 10.3905/jpm.1992.701922
[29]	Rydqvist K, Spizman J, Strebulaev I (2014) Government policy and ownership of equity securities. J Fin Econ 111: 70–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.09.001
[30]	Sensoy B (2009) Performance evaluation and self-designated benchmark indexes in the mutual fund industry. J Fin Econ 92: 25–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.02.011
[31]	Vijh A (1994) S&P 500 trading strategies and stock betas. Rev Fin Stud 7: 215–251. doi: 10.1093/rfs/7.1.215
[32]	Wagner N (2002) On a model of portfolio selection with benchmark. J Ass Mgmt 3: 55–65. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jam.2240065
[33]	Wagner N, Winter E (2013) A new family of equity style indices and mutual fund performance: Do liquidity and idiosyncratic risk matter? J Emp Fin 21: 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2012.12.005
[34]	Wermers R (2000) Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock-picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses. J Fin 55: 1655–1703. doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00263

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)