Empirical evaluation of overspecified asset pricing models
过度设定资产定价模型的实证评价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:摘要直接研究冗余风险因子、随机贴现因子和风险价格,并评价 CAPM 的常见扩展。
过度设定资产定价模型的实证评价AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Empirical asset pricing models with possibly unnecessary risk factors are increasingly common. Unfortunately, they can yield misleading statistical inferences. Unlike previous studies, we estimate the identified set of SDFs and risk prices compatible with a given model’s asset pricing restrictions. We also propose tests that detect problematic situations with economically meaningless SDFs unrelated to the test assets. Empirically, we estimate linear subspaces of SDFs compatible with popular extensions of the traditional and consumption versions of the CAPM, which are typically two-dimensional. Moreover, we often find that all the SDFs in those linear spaces are uncorrelated with the test assets’ returns.