Intermediary and downside risk asset pricing theories lay the foundations for spanning the multi-asset return space by a small number of risk factors. Recent studies show strong empirical support for such factors across major asset classes. We revisit these results and show that robust evidence for common factor pricing remains elusive. Importantly, the proposed risk factors do not seem to provide incremental information to the traditional market factor. We argue that most of the economic and statistical challenges are not specific to these analyses and, with the aid of a placebo test, offer general recommendations for improving empirical practice, thus adding to the prescriptions in Lewellen et al. (2010).

[Although it is of interest to test whether or not a particular asset pricing model is literally true, a more useful task for empirical researchers is to determine how wrong a model is and to compare the performance of competing asset pricing models. In this paper, we propose a new methodology to test whether or not two competing linear asset pricing models have the same Hansen-Jagannathan distance. We show that the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic depends on whether the competing models are correctly specified or misspecified, and on whether the competing models are nested or non-nested. In addition, given the increasing interest in misspecified models, we propose a simple methodology for computing the standard errors of the estimated stochastic discount factor parameters that are robust to model misspecification. Using monthly data on 25 size and book-to-market ranked portfolios and the one-month T-bill, we show that the commonly used returns and factors are, for the most part, too noisy for us to conclude that one model is superior to the other models in terms of Hansen-Jagannathan distance. Specifically, there is little evidence that conditional and intertemporal capital asset pricing model (CAPM)-type specifications outperform the simple unconditional CAPM. In addition, we show that many of the macroeconomic factors commonly used in the literature are no longer priced once potential model misspecification is taken into account.]

This paper shows that in misspecified models with risk factors that are uncorrelated with the test asset returns, the conventional inference methods tend to erroneously conclude, with high probability, that these factors are priced. Our proposed model selection procedure, which is robust to identification failure and potential model misspecification, restores the standard inference and proves to be effective in eliminating factors that do not improve the model's pricing ability. Applying our methodology to several popular asset-pricing models suggests that only the market and book-to-market factors appear to be priced, while the statistical evidence on the pricing ability of many macroeconomic factors is rather weak.

Although it is of interest to test whether or not a particular asset pricing model is literally true, a more useful task for empirical researchers is to determine how wrong a model is and to compare the performance of competing asset pricing models. In this paper, we propose a new methodology to test whether or not two competing linear asset pricing models have the same Hansen-Jagannathan distance. We show that the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic depends on whether the competing models are correctly specified or misspecified, and on whether the competing models are nested or non-nested. In addition, given the increasing interest in misspecified models, we propose a simple methodology for computing the standard errors of the estimated stochastic discount factor parameters that are robust to model misspecification. Using monthly data on 25 size and book-to-market ranked portfolios and the one-month T-bill, we show that the commonly used returns and factors are, for the most part, too noisy for us to conclude that one model is superior to the other models in terms of Hansen-Jagannathan distance. Specifically, there is little evidence that conditional and intertemporal capital asset pricing model (CAPM)-type specifications outperform the simple unconditional CAPM. In addition, we show that many of the macroeconomic factors commonly used in the literature are no longer priced once potential model misspecification is taken into account.

This paper is concerned with statistical inference and model evaluation in possibly misspecified and unidentified linear asset pricing models estimated by maximum likelihood. Strikingly, when spurious factors (that is, factors that are uncorrelated with the returns on the test assets) are present, the model exhibits perfect fit, as measured by the squared correlation between the model’s fitted expected returns and the average realized returns. Furthermore, factors that are spurious are selected with high probability, and factors that are useful are driven out of the model. While ignoring potential misspecification and lack of identification can be very problematic for models with macroeconomic factors, empirical specifications with traded factors (e.g., Fama and French, 1993; Hou et al., 2015) do not suffer from the identification problems shown in this study.

This paper shows that in misspecified models with risk factors that are uncorrelated with the test asset returns, the conventional inference methods tend to erroneously conclude, with high probability, that these factors are priced. Our proposed model selection procedure, which is robust to identification failure and potential model misspecification, restores the standard inference and proves to be effective in eliminating factors that do not improve the model's pricing ability. Applying our methodology to several popular asset-pricing models suggests that only the market and book-to-market factors appear to be priced, while the statistical evidence on the pricing ability of many macroeconomic factors is rather weak.

We study some seemingly anomalous results that arise in possibly misspecified, reduced-rank linear asset-pricing models estimated by the continuously updated generalized method of moments. When a spurious factor (that is, a factor that is uncorrelated with the returns on the test assets) is present, the test for correct model specification has asymptotic power that is equal to the nominal size. In other words, applied researchers will erroneously conclude that the model is correctly specified even when the degree of misspecification is arbitrarily large.The rejection probability of the test for overidentifying restrictions typically decreases further in underidentified models where the dimension of the null space is larger than 1.

Recent studies document strong empirical support for multifactor models that aim to explain the cross-sectional variation in corporate bond expected excess returns. We revisit these findings and provide evidence that common factor pricing in corporate bonds is exceedingly difficult to establish. Based on portfolio- and bond-level analyses, we demonstrate that previously proposed bond risk factors , with traded liquidity as the only marginal exception, do not have any incremental explanatory power over the corporate bond market factor. Consequently, this implies that the bond CAPM is not dominated by either traded- or nontraded-factor models in pairwise and multiple model comparison tests.

We propose a methodology for estimating and testing beta-pricing models when a large number of assets is available for investment but the number of time-series observations is fixed. We first consider the case of correctly specified models with constant risk premia, and then extend our framework to deal with time-varying risk premia, potentially misspecified models, firm characteristics, and unbalanced panels. We show that our large cross-sectional framework poses a serious challenge to common empirical findings regarding the validity of beta-pricing models. In the context of pricing models with Fama-French factors, firm characteristics are found to explain a much larger proportion of variation in estimated expected returns than betas. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

ABSTRACT Over the years, many asset pricing studies have employed the sample cross‐sectional regression (CSR) R 2 as a measure of model performance. We derive the asymptotic distribution of this statistic and develop associated model comparison tests, taking into account the impact of model misspecification on the variability of the CSR estimates. We encounter several examples of large R 2 differences that are not statistically significant. A version of the intertemporal capital asset pricing model (CAPM) exhibits the best overall performance, followed by the Fama–French three‐factor model. Interestingly, the performance of prominent consumption CAPMs is sensitive to variations in experimental design.