本页提供题录、可核实摘要与阅读线索。AI 解读未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明和结论请核对原文。仅依据书目生成的内容属于阅读导航，不是对论文结论的确认。
摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。材料不足时保留待解读状态；引用采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计版本，缺失不视为零，也不代表论文质量。
正在核对对应版本的资源…
It has become standard practice in the cross-sectional asset pricing literature to evaluate models based on how well they explain average returns on size-B/M portfolios, something many models seem to do remarkably well. In this paper, we review and critique the empirical methods used in the literature. We argue that asset pricing tests are often highly misleading, in the sense that apparently strong explanatory power (high cross-sectional R2s and small pricing errors) can provide quite weak support for a model. We offer a number of suggestions for improving empirical tests and evidence that several proposed models do not work as well as originally advertised.