SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8

Finansal Varlık Fiyatlandırma Modeli ve Sonrasındaki Gelişmeler

Hüseyin DAĞLI
Semre BANK
Pages
0
Publication Date
2013-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this way, on the one hand, this study enable the assessment of CAPM together with other asset pricing models, and on the other hand, it emphasizes empirical failure of CAPM.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, a detailed explanation of CAPM which is the most common model used for explaining of relationship between risk and expected return in financial theory, early tests of this model, new models following this model and studies that include new variables in asset pricing different from CAPM is provided, respectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, a detailed explanation of CAPM which is the most common model used for explaining of relationship between risk and expected return in financial theory, early tests of this model, new models following this model and studies that include new variables in asset pricing different from CAPM is provided, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this way, on the one hand, this study enable the assessment of CAPM together with other asset pricing models, and on the other hand, it emphasizes empirical failure of CAPM.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Finansal Varlık Fiyatlandırma Modeli · FVFM Sonrasındaki Yeni Model Gelişmeleri · FVFM’nin Test Edilmesi

Abstract

In this study, a detailed explanation of CAPM which is the most common model used for explaining of relationship between risk and expected return in financial theory, early tests of this model, new models following this model and studies that include new variables in asset pricing different from CAPM is provided, respectively. In this way, on the one hand, this study enable the assessment of CAPM together with other asset pricing models, and on the other hand, it emphasizes empirical failure of CAPM.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, sırasıyla, finans teorisinde risk ve beklenen getiri arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamaya yönelik olarak kullanılan en yaygın model olan Finansal Varlık Fiyatlandırma Modeli’nin (FVFM), bu modelin ilk ampirik testlerinin, bu modeli takiben ortaya çıkan yeni modellerin ve FVFM’nden farklı olarak varlık fiyatlandırmasına yeni değişkenler dahil eden çalışmaların ayrıntılı bir açıklaması yapılmaktadır. Böylelikle, çalışma, bir taraftan FVFM’nin diğer varlık fiyatlandırma modelleri ile birlikte değerlendirilmesine imkan tanımakta, diğer taraftan ise, FVFM’nin ampirik başarısızlığını vurgulamaya çalışmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAĞLI, H., BANK, S. (2013). Finansal Varlık Fiyatlandırma Modeli ve Sonrasındaki Gelişmeler. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8, 0. https://ajindex.com/articles/9563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. BANZ, Rolf W.; (1981), “The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks”, Journal of Financial Economics, 9 (1), pp.3-18.
  2. BASU, Sanjoy; (1977), “Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their PriceEarnings Ratios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis”, The Journal of Finance, 32 (3), pp.663-682.
  3. BASU, Sanjoy; (1983), “The Relationship between Earnings’ Yield, Market Value, and Return for NYSE Common Stocks: Further Evidence”, Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (1), pp.129-156.
  4. BHANDARI, Laxmi Chand; (1988), “Debt/Equity Ratio and Expected Common Stock Returns: Empirical Evidence”, The Journal of Finance, 43 (2), pp.507-528.
  5. BLACK, Fischer; (1972), “Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing”, The Journal of Business, 45 (3), pp.444-455.
  6. BLACK, Fischer, Michael C. Jensen ve Myron Scholes; (1972), “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908569&download=yes, 2011.
  7. BLUME, Marshall E. ve Irwin, FRİEND; (1973), “A New Look at the Capital Asset Pricing Model”, The Journal of Finance, 28 (1), pp.19-33.
  8. BREEDEN, Douglas T.; (1979), “An Intertemporal Asset Pricing Model with Stochastic Consumption and Investment Opportunities”, Journal of Financial Economics, 7, pp.265-296.
  9. CAMPBELL, John Y.; Andrew W. LO ve A. Craig MACKINLAY; (1997), The Econometrics of Financial Markets, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  10. CARHART, Mark M.; (1997), “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance”, The Journal of Finance, 52 (1), pp.57-82.
  11. CHAN, Louis K. C.; Yasushi HAMAO ve Josef LAKONISHOK; (1991), “Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan”, The Journal of Finance, 46 (5), pp.1739-1764.
  12. DAĞLI, Hüseyin; (2009), Sermaye Piyasası ve Portföy Analizi, 3. Baskı, Trabzon: Derya Kitabevi.
  13. DHANKAR, Raj S. ve Rohini, SINGH; (2005), “Arbitrage Pricing Theory and the Capital Asset Pricing Model Evidence from the Indian Stock Market”, Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, 18(1), pp.14-27.
  14. FAMA, Eugene F. ve James D. MACBETH; (1973), “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests”, The Journal of Political Economy, 81 (3), pp.607-636.
  15. FAMA, Eugene F. ve Kenneth R. FRENCH; (1992), “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns”, The Journal of Finance, 47 (2), pp.427-465.
  16. FAMA, Eugene F. ve Kenneth R. FRENCH; (1993), “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics, 33, pp.3-56.
  17. FAMA, Eugene F. ve Kenneth R. FRENCH; (1995), “Size and B