In contrast, the APT formula has several, including non-company factors that call for the asset’s beta as per every independent factor. The APT does not offer information as to what these factors might be, though, which means APT users should examine all factors that could possibly impact the asset’s returns. On the other hand, the CAPM relies on the difference between the expected and the risk-free rate of return. We can define any number of risk factors having any plausible relationship to the expected return. However, the factors must be systematic in nature because any unique risk can be diversified away and isn’t compensated by an efficient market.
When analysts come up with risk projections, their subjective decisions can make the picture even more complex. And while they may be rational and objective when studying risk levels, their opinions will reduce the quality of their mathematical projections. Another drawback is that CAPM calculations are made for just one period, with the formula being too linear.
Therefore, there is a need to modify APT for its implementation in markets that are not always in equilibrium. Firstly, it assumes that financial markets are perfectly competitive and frictionless, meaning there are no transaction costs, tax implications or restrictions on borrowing. APT has been subject to various criticisms and controversies in the academic and financial communities.
Additionally, CAPM’s reliance on historical data for estimating beta coefficients may not accurately capture future market conditions. APT, although more flexible, requires the identification and estimation of relevant factors, which can be challenging and subjective. It also assumes that the relationship between factors and asset returns is linear, which may not difference between capm and apt always be the case. At first glance, the CAPM and APT formulas look identical, but the CAPM has only one factor and one beta. Conversely, the APT formula has multiple factors that include non-company factors, which requires the asset’s beta in relation to each separate factor.
CAPM is often used for broad-based market analysis, while APT may be more suitable for specialized strategies that incorporate multiple risk factors. Some limitations of APT include the challenges in identifying and estimating relevant risk factors and potential deviations from perfect market conditions. APT has also faced criticism for its reliance on historical data and assumptions. By diversifying their portfolios, investors reduce the impact of idiosyncratic risk while retaining exposure to systematic risk, which is essential for capturing expected returns according to APT.
In essence, traders purchase an undervalued asset in one market and resell it in another where it is priced higher, thereby earning a risk-free profit. On the economic side, the Arbitrage Pricing Theory stresses the principle of arbitrage itself, which is a fundamental concept in finance. Morpher.com offers a revolutionary trading experience that aligns perfectly with the sophisticated strategies discussed in this guide. With zero fees, infinite liquidity, and the ability to trade across a multitude of asset classes, Morpher empowers you to apply APT principles in real-time. Whether you’re looking to invest fractionally or take advantage of 10x leverage, Morpher’s blockchain-based platform is designed to elevate your trading game.
Unlike the CAPM, which assume markets are perfectly efficient, APT assumes markets sometimes misprice securities, before the market eventually corrects and securities move back to fair value. Using APT, arbitrageurs hope to take advantage of any deviations from fair market value. In Chapters 1 and 2, we introduced the general equilibrium approach to asset pricing, and presented a rationalization of the implied asset-pricing relations based on much weaker notions of the absence of arbitrage. Whereas these theoretical approaches provide intellectually appealing and elegant characterizations of asset pricing, the empirical finance literature has been dominated by two other approaches.
Investors who adopt the same outlook can create a bubble that minimizes the asset’s inherent risks once asset price increases. In this case, measuring an asset’s risk according to the market’s temperament can be riskier than using CAPM or APT. Risk is inevitable for all types of assets, but the risk level for assets can vary.