In this article, the authors develop alternative ways to compare asset pricing models when it is understood that their implied stochastic discount factors do not price all portfolios correctly. Unlike comparisons based on chi square statistics associated with null hypotheses that models are correct, the authors' measures of model performance do not reward variability of discount factor proxies. One of their measures is designed to exploit fully the implications of arbitrage-free pricing of derivative claims. The authors demonstrate empirically the usefulness of their methods in assessing some alternative stochastic factor models that have been proposed in asset pricing literature.

ABSTRACT In this article we develop alternative ways to compare asset pricing models when it is understood that their implied stochastic discount factors do not price all portfolios correctly. Unlike comparisons based on statistics associated with null hypotheses that models are correct, our measures of model performance do not reward variability of discount factor proxies. One of our measures is designed to exploit fully the implications of arbitrage‐free pricing of derivative claims. We demonstrate empirically the usefulness of our methods in assessing some alternative stochastic factor models that have been proposed in asset pricing literature.

In this article we develop alternative ways to compare asset pricing models when it is understood that their implied stochastic discount factors do not price all portfolios correctly. Unlike comparisons based on χ 2 statistics associated with null hypotheses that models are correct, our measures of model performance do not reward variability of discount factor proxies. One of our measures is designed to exploit fully the implications of arbitrage-free pricing of derivative claims. We demonstrate empirically the usefulness of our methods in assessing some alternative stochastic factor models that have been proposed in asset pricing literature.