Different forms of Capital Asset Pricing Models (CAPM) have been developed over the years and separate tests have been run to date. However, the majority of studies consider only the US stock market as a proxy to perform the analysis. The purpose of this paper is to test the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model, or one-factor Capital Asset Pricing Model, developed independently by Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965) and Mossin (1966) and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), proposed by Ross (1976), on the Italian stock market. Together with the London stock exchange, it forms one of the largest stock exchange group in the world by market capitalization. Consistent with the findings of Mandelbrot (1963) and Fama (1965), the FTSE MIB index and thirty-nine out of forty shares listed on the index are not normally distributed, suggesting that the distribution of returns of the ISM as a whole may not be Gaussian. The empirical analysis reveals that the relationship between risk and return in the ISM during April 2009 and March 2019 is mild, and CAPM should be avoided, since it has poor explanatory power. The APT, which is a multifactor approach to explain prices of securities, performed better in all tests considered and therefore its use should be preferred.
Differenti forme di Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) sono state sviluppate e test separati sono stati condotti sui modelli alternativi realizzati fino ad oggi. Tuttavia, la maggioranza dei test tiene considerazione solo del mercato azionario americano per effettuare le analisi. Lo scopo di questa tesi di laurea magistrale è di testare lo standard Capital Asset Pricing Model, o one-factor Capital Asset Pricing Model, realizzato indipendentemente da Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965) e Mossin (1966) e l’Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), proposto da Ross (1976), sul mercato azionario italiano. Insieme al mercato azionario londinese, esso forma uno dei più grandi gruppi di mercati azionari al mondo per capitalizzazione di mercato. Coerentemente con i risultati di Mandelbrot (1963) e Fama (1965), l’indice FTSE MIB e trenta nove su quaranta azioni quotate non hanno una distribuzione normale e quindi la distribuzione dei ritorni dell’intero mercato azionario italiano può non essere Gaussiana. L’analisi empirica suggerisce che la relazione tra rischio e ritorno nel mercato azionario italiano durante l’arco temporale Aprile 2009 e Marzo 2019 è debole, e l’utilizzo del modello CAPM dovrebbe essere evitato, dato il suo limitato potere esplicativo. L’APT, il quale rappresenta un approccio multifattoriale per spiegare il movimento dei prezzi delle azioni, ha performato meglio in tutti i test considerati. Per tale motivo, il suo utilizzo dovrebbe essere preferito.
Empirical Testing of One-Factor Capital Asset Pricing Model and Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Evidence from the Italian Stock Market
ESPOSITO, CIRO DONALD
2018/2019
Abstract
Different forms of Capital Asset Pricing Models (CAPM) have been developed over the years and separate tests have been run to date. However, the majority of studies consider only the US stock market as a proxy to perform the analysis. The purpose of this paper is to test the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model, or one-factor Capital Asset Pricing Model, developed independently by Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965) and Mossin (1966) and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), proposed by Ross (1976), on the Italian stock market. Together with the London stock exchange, it forms one of the largest stock exchange group in the world by market capitalization. Consistent with the findings of Mandelbrot (1963) and Fama (1965), the FTSE MIB index and thirty-nine out of forty shares listed on the index are not normally distributed, suggesting that the distribution of returns of the ISM as a whole may not be Gaussian. The empirical analysis reveals that the relationship between risk and return in the ISM during April 2009 and March 2019 is mild, and CAPM should be avoided, since it has poor explanatory power. The APT, which is a multifactor approach to explain prices of securities, performed better in all tests considered and therefore its use should be preferred.È consentito all'utente scaricare e condividere i documenti disponibili a testo pieno in UNITESI UNIPV nel rispetto della licenza Creative Commons del tipo CC BY NC ND.
Per maggiori informazioni e per verifiche sull'eventuale disponibilità del file scrivere a: unitesi@unipv.it.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14239/5897