Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:41:52.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asset Pricing Models When the Number of Securities Held is Constrained: A Comparison and Reconciliation of the Mao and Levy Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Lawrence Kryzanowski  and
To Minh Chau
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a paper published in 1978, Levy [5] proposed a general capital asset pricing model (GCAPM), which he obtained by maximizing investors' utility when the number of securities held in each investor's portfolio is constrained. Although Levy's resultant asset pricing model is somewhat different in appearance than the asset pricing model proposed by Mao [8] in 1971, it can be shown that both models are not only quite comparable in content but that both result in some very promising theoretical and empirical implications. Thus, the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, these two important contributions to the literature on asset pricing in imperfect markets will be compared and contrasted. Second, it will be shown that both models can yield a “clinical” form of the traditional CAPM, which appears to be more desirable for empirical testing purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 63 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Blume, M. E., Crockett, J., and Friend, I.. “Stock Ownership in the United States: Characteristics and Trends.” Survey of Current Business, Vol. 54 (11 1974), pp. 16–40.Google Scholar
[2]Blume, M. E., and Friend, I.. “The Asset Structure of Individual Portfolios and Some Implications for Utility Functions.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 30 (05 1975), pp. 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Evans, J., and Archer, S. H.. “Diversification and the Reduction of Dispersion: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 23 (12 1968), pp. 761–767.Google Scholar
[4]Hawawini, G. A., and Vora, A.. “Equilibrium in an Imperfect Market—A Constraint on the Number of Securities in the Portfolio: Comment.” Working paper, Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, The City University of New York (1980).Google Scholar
[5]Levy, H. “Equilibrium in an Imperfect Market: A Constraint on the Number of Securities in the Portfolio.” American Economic Review, Vol. 68, No. 4 (09 1978), pp. 643–658.Google Scholar
[6]Lintner, J. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.” The Review of Economics and Statistics (02 1965), pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
[7]Lintner, J. “The Aggregation of Investors' Diverse Judgments and Preferences in Purely Competitive Security Markets.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (12 1965), pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
[8]Mao, J. C. T. “Security Pricing in an Imperfect Capital Market.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 4 (09 1971), PP. 1105–1116.Google Scholar
[9]Roll, R. “A Critique of the Asset Pricing Theory's Tests.” Journal of Financial Economics (03 1977), pp. 129–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Ross, S. A. “The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing.” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 13 (1976), pp. 341–360.Google Scholar
[11]Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior towards Risk.” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (02 1958), pp. 65–85.Google Scholar