Can a well‐fitted equilibrium asset‐pricing model produce mean reversion?
拟合良好的均衡资产定价模型能否产生均值回归?AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接检验均衡资产定价模型对长期收益均值回归及超额收益的解释能力。
拟合良好的均衡资产定价模型能否产生均值回归?AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Abstract In recent papers, Cecchetti et al . (1990) and Kandel and Stambaugh (1990) showed that negative serial correlation in long horizon returns was consistent with an equilibrium model of asset pricing. In this paper, we show that their results rely on misspecified Markov switching models for the endowment process. Once the proper Markov specification is chosen for the endowment process, the model does not produce mean reversion of the magnitude detected in the data. Furthermore, the small amount of mean reversion produced by the model is due only to small sample bias. We also show that this model is unable to predict negative excess returns, contrary to empirical evidence.