CAPM or APT? A Comparison of Two Asset Pricing Models for Malaysia

Authors

  • Cung Huck Khoon United Kingdom
  • Ahmadu Umaru Sanda Malaysia
  • G.S. Gupta India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mmj1999.3.2.4

Abstract

This study uses monthly return data on 213 stocks listed on the main board of Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, Malaysia for the period September 1988 to June 1997 to compare two frequently cited asset pricing models: the capital asset pricing model, CAPM and the arbitrage pricing theory, APT. A comparison was performed along the lines of Chen (1983) and the results showed the APT to perform better than the CAP/ in explaining the variations in cross section of returns. The implication for investors is that the market index is but one of several sources of risk, which should be taken into account in any decision governing investment in the stock market.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrew, C.S. (1984). The Impact of Analyst Ne-glect on Stock Market Performance. Un-published PhD Thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Bell, F.W. (1974). The relation of the structure of common stock prices to historical, expectational and industrial variables. Jour-nal of Finance, 29 (1) March, 187-197.

Blume, M. & Friend, I. (1973). A new look at the capital asset pricing model. Journal of Fi-nance, May, 283-299.

Burmeister, E. & McElroy, M.B. (1988). Joint estimation of factor sensitivities and risk Malaysian Management Journal 3 (2), 49-72 (1999) premia for the arbitrage pricingtheory.Jour-_ Gibbons, M.R. (1982). Multivariate tests of finan-nal of Finance, 43 (3) July, 721-735. cial models: A new approach. Journal of Financial Economics, X (1) March, 3-28

Chan, L.K.C., Hamao, Y. & Lakonishok, J. (1991). Fundamentals and stock returns in Japan. Journal of Finance, 46 (5) December, 1739-1764.

Gujarati, D. (1992). Essentials of Econometrics. MacGraw-Hill, New York.

Gultekin, M. & Gultekin, N.B. (1987). Stock return anomalies and tests of the APT. Journal of Finance, 42, 1213-1221

Pen, N. (1983). Some empirical tests of the theory of arbitrage pricing. Journal of Finance, December, 1393-1444. —Shen, N., Roll, N. & Ross, S. (1986). Economic Jordan, S.D. & Jordan, B.D. (1991). Seasonality in O factors and the stock market. Journal of daily bond returns. Journal of Financial Business, 59, 386-403 and Quantitative Analysis, 26 (2) June, 269-Oo) 276.

Cho, D.C., Eun C.S. & Senbet, L.W. (1986). Inter-national arbitrage pricing theory: An em-Korajczyk, R.A. (1996). A measure of stock mar-pirical investigation. Journal of Finance, 41 ket integration for developed and emerging ~*~) (2) June, 313-329. markets. The World Bank Economic Re-view, 10 (2), 267-290. ory, A., Hawawini, G. & Michel, P. (1987). _—- Seasonality in the risk-return relationship: Kraus, A. & Litzenberger, R.H. (1976). Skewness Some international evidence. Journal of preference and the valuation of risk assets. Finance, 42 (1) March, 49-68. Journal of Finance, 31 (4)

September, 1085-1100. preymes P.J. (1984). The empirical relevance of — arbitrage pricing models. Journal of Portfo- : Livingston, M. (1977). Industry movements of = lio Management, Summer, 35-44. common stock. Journal of Finance, 32 (2), QO 861-874. inza, V. & Losq, E. (1985). International asset —_— pricing under mild segmentation: Theory —_

Markowitz, H.M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Jour-

Cc and test. Journal of Finance, 40, 105-124, Markowitz, HM. (1952), Portfolio selection. Jour nal of Finance, III (1) March, 77-91.

Fama, E.F. & MacBeth, J.D. (1973). Risk, return. and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Oldfield, Jr, G.S. & Rogalski, R.J. (1981). Treasury Political Economy, 81, 607-636. bill factors and common stock returns. Jour-nal of Finance, 36 (2) May, 337-350.

Fama, E.F. & French, K.R. (1992). The cross section of expected stock returns. Journalof _ Pettengill,G.N., Sundaram, S. & Mathur, I. (1995). Finance, 47(2), 427-466 The conditional relation between beta and Malaysian Management Journal 3 (2), 49-72 (1999) returns. Journal of Financial and Quantita-tive Analysis, 30 (1) March, 101-116.

Roll, R. (1977). A critique of the asset pricing theo-ry’s tests. Journal of Financial Economics, May, 29-76.

Roll, R. & Ross, S.A. (1980). An empirical investiga-tion of the arbitrage pricing theory. Journal of Finance, 41, 347-368.

Ross, S. (1976). The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing. Journal of Economic Theory, De-cember, 341-360.

Sanda, A.U., Gupta, G.S. & Shafie, A.G. (1999). The Relation Between Risk and Return: An Em-pirical Test of the Capital Asset Pricing Model for Malaysia. Mimeo, Universiti Sains Ma-laysia

Shanken, J. (1982). The arbitrage price theory: Is it testable?. Journal of Finance, 37 (Decem-ber), 1129-1140. //mmj.uum.edu.m http

Sharpe, W.F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under con-ditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19, 425-442.

Solnik, B.H. (1977). Testing international asset pricing: Some pessimistic views. Journal of Finance, 32 (2), 503-517.

Stehle, R. (1977). An empirical test of the alternative hypothesis of national and international pricing of risky assets. Jour-nal of Finance, 32 (2) May, 493-502.

Tinic, S. & West, R. (1984). Risk and return: January vs. the rest of the year. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 561-574. Young, S.D., Berry, M.A., Harvey, D.W. &

Page, J.R. (1991). Macroeconomic forces, systematic risk, and financial variables: An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 26 (4), 559-564. Malaysian Management Journal 3 (2), 49 -72 (1999) //mmj.uum.edu.my http STOCK MLONG ACHEM PROMET UE(M) DMIB G'NEALY HEXZA B-TEXTS KRAMAT MARUICH MUIB ASIAPAC HLCRED K'HALL P'GKALE S.BANK SHELL TONGKAH C&CBIN DBABY FAP GADEK KEL'MAS M'SHITA BETA 0.8611 1.5748 1.2623 0.8680 0.6571 1.8536 0.6410 1.4157 1.2220 0.9596 1.6052 1.2458 0.4510 0.6969 0.6974 1.2582 0.0976 1.2345 0.8941 1.2181 1.1576 1.3262 0.7795 0.6655 1.3118 0.5934 1.4329 1.0615 0.8122 1.0447 1.3180 0.0786 0.9763

Downloads

Published

01-12-1999

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (1999): Malaysian Management Journal (MMJ) Vol. 3 No. 2 December 1999

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Khoon, C. H., Sanda, A. U., & Gupta, G. (1999). CAPM or APT? A Comparison of Two Asset Pricing Models for Malaysia. Malaysian Management Journal, 3(2), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.32890/mmj1999.3.2.4

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-14
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mmj1999.3.2.4

Most read articles by the same author(s)