IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v11y2023i4p65-d1106286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Competing Asset Pricing Models: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Eleftherios Thalassinos

    (Department of Maritime Studies, Faculty of Maritime and Industrial Studies, University of Piraeus, 185-33 Piraeus, Greece
    Department of Insurance and Risk Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, University of Malta, 2080 Msida, Malta)

  • Naveed Khan

    (Department of Management Sciences, Hitec University, Taxila 47080, Pakistan)

  • Shakeel Ahmed

    (Department of Management Sciences, Hitec University, Taxila 47080, Pakistan)

  • Hassan Zada

    (Department of Management Sciences, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

  • Anjum Ihsan

    (Department of Management Sciences, Islamia College University, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan)

Abstract

In recent years, the rapid and significant development of emerging markets has globally led to insight from potential investors and academicians seeking to assess these markets in terms of risk inheritance. Therefore, this study aims to explore the validity and applicability of the capital asset pricing model (henceforth CAPM) and multi-factor models, namely Fama–French models, in Pakistan’s stock market for the period of June 2010–June 2020. This study collects data on 173 non-financial firms listed on the Pakistan stock exchange, namely the KSE-100 index, and follows Fama-MacBeth’s regression methodology for empirical estimation. The empirical findings of this study conclude that small portfolios (small-size companies) earn considerably higher returns than big portfolios (large-size companies). Ultimately, the risk associated with portfolio returns is reported to be higher for small portfolios (small-size companies) than for big portfolios (large-size companies). According to the regression output, the CAPM was found to be valid for explaining the market risk premium above the risk-free rate. Similarly, the FF three-factor model was found to be valid for explaining time-series variation in excess portfolio returns. Later, we added human capital into FF three- and five-factor models. This study found that the human capital base six-factor model outperformed the other competing asset pricing models. The findings of this study indicate that small portfolios (small-size companies) earn more returns than big portfolios (large-size companies) to reward the investor for taking extra risks. Investors may benefit by timing their investments to maximize stock returns. Company investment in human capital adds reliable information, replicates the value of the company and, in the long term, helps investors make rational decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleftherios Thalassinos & Naveed Khan & Shakeel Ahmed & Hassan Zada & Anjum Ihsan, 2023. "A Comparison of Competing Asset Pricing Models: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:65-:d:1106286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/4/65/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/4/65/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jagannathan, Ravi & Wang, Zhenyu, 1996. "The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 3-53, March.
    2. Barillas, Francisco & Kan, Raymond & Robotti, Cesare & Shanken, Jay, 2020. "Model Comparison with Sharpe Ratios," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(6), pages 1840-1874, September.
    3. Konstantin B. Kostin & Philippe Runge & Michel Charifzadeh, 2022. "An Analysis and Comparison of Multi-Factor Asset Pricing Model Performance during Pandemic Situations in Developed and Emerging Markets," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. John Lintner, 1965. "Security Prices, Risk, And Maximal Gains From Diversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 20(4), pages 587-615, December.
    5. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 2015. "A five-factor asset pricing model," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 1-22.
    6. Fletcher, Jonathan, 2018. "Bayesian tests of global factor models," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 279-289.
    7. Hou, Kewei & Xue, Chen & Zhang, Lu, 2015. "A Comparison of New Factor Models," Working Paper Series 2015-05, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    8. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
    9. J. Tobin, 1958. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 25(2), pages 65-86.
    10. He, Zhiguo & Kelly, Bryan & Manela, Asaf, 2017. "Intermediary asset pricing: New evidence from many asset classes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 1-35.
    11. Adam Zaremba & Alina Maydybura & Anna Czapkiewicz & Marina Arnaut, 2021. "Explaining Equity Anomalies in Frontier Markets: A Horserace of Factor Pricing Models," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(13), pages 3604-3633, October.
    12. Santhakumar Shijin & Arun Kumar Gopalaswamy & Debashis Acharya, 2012. "Dynamic risk‐return relation with human capital: a study on Indian markets," International Journal of Emerging Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(2), pages 146-159, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Puteri Aina Megat & Mursyidatul Najwa Khairudin & Nur Jalilah Haniffah & Ganesan Paramasivam, 2024. "Relationship of Fintech Innovation with Green Growth Sustainability Moderated by Blockchain Smart Contracts Among Small and Medium Sized Enterprise in Selangor, Malaysia," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 51-81.
    2. Mouna Aloui & Jarboui Anis, 2023. "The Dynamic Relation between the Oil Price Volatility, Stock Market, Exchange and Interest Rate in GCC Countries: Panel Vector Autoregressive (PVAR) Model," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 114-128.
    3. H M Sifullah & Parvin Akater Shelly & Dr. Mohammad Nazim Uddin & Tanbina Tabassum & Md Ahsan Uddin, 2024. "Does Financial Leverage Impact the Financial Performance of Pharmaceutical Companies in Bangladesh?," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(2), pages 37-63.
    4. Karol Sikora, 2023. "Profit and Loss Account Variant Selection by Companies Listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange:An Empirical Perspective," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 839-854.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ray Ball & Gil Sadka & Ayung Tseng, 2022. "Using accounting earnings and aggregate economic indicators to estimate firm-level systematic risk," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 607-646, June.
    2. Huynh, Thanh D., 2017. "Conditional asset pricing in international equity markets," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 168-189.
    3. Mehnaz Roushan Laura & Nafiz Ul Fahad, 2017. "The Classical Approaches to Testing the Unconditional CAPM: UK Evidence," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(3), pages 220-232, March.
    4. Bradrania, Reza & Veron, Jose Francisco, 2023. "The beta anomaly in the Australian stock market and the lottery demand," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, October.
    6. Francisco Peñaranda & Enrique Sentana, 2024. "Portfolio management with big data," Working Papers wp2024_2411, CEMFI.
    7. Andrew Ang & Robert J. Hodrick & Yuhang Xing & Xiaoyan Zhang, 2006. "The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 259-299, February.
    8. Karagiannidis, Iordanis & Vozlyublennaia, Nadia, 2016. "Limits to mutual funds' ability to rely on mean/variance optimization," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 282-292.
    9. Andrew Detzel, 2017. "Monetary Policy Surprises, Investment Opportunities, And Asset Prices," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 315-348, September.
    10. Zura Kakushadze & Willie Yu, 2016. "Multifactor Risk Models and Heterotic CAPM," Papers 1602.04902, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    11. Kent Daniel & David Hirshleifer & Lin Sun, 2020. "Short- and Long-Horizon Behavioral Factors," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 1673-1736.
    12. Murtazashvili, Irina & Vozlyublennaia, Nadia, 2012. "The role of data limitations, seasonality and frequency in asset pricing models," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 555-574.
    13. Pintor, Gabor, 2016. "The macroeconomic shock with the highest price of risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86225, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Hanauer, Matthias X. & Jansen, Maarten & Swinkels, Laurens & Zhou, Weili, 2024. "Factor models for Chinese A-shares," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Li Gu & Dayong Huang, 2013. "Consumption, Money, Intratemporal Substitution, And Cross-Sectional Asset Returns," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 36(1), pages 115-146, January.
    16. Zhang, Xiang & Liu, Yangyi & Wu, Kun & Maillet, Bertrand, 2021. "Tradable or nontradable factors—what does the Hansen–Jagannathan distance tell us?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 853-879.
    17. Dong, Dayong & Wu, Keke & Fang, Jianchun & Gozgor, Giray & Yan, Cheng, 2022. "Investor attention factors and stock returns: Evidence from China," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Amit Goyal, 2012. "Empirical cross-sectional asset pricing: a survey," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 26(1), pages 3-38, March.
    19. de Oliveira Souza, Thiago, 2016. "The size premium and intertemporal risk," Discussion Papers on Economics 3/2016, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    20. Christopher Anderson, 2021. "Consumption-Based Asset Pricing When Consumers Make Mistakes," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-015, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:65-:d:1106286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.