Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: Fama-MacBeth regressions


From   "Subhankar Nayak" <nayak@bellsouth.net>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   Re: st: Fama-MacBeth regressions
Date   Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:08:22 -0400

> 1. Looks like there is quite a bit of arbitrary tune up: why 24
> months? why 10 portfolios?

Actually, the number of portfolios and the number of estimation months,
though arbitrary, is not crucial...
I and others have done sensitivity analysis and find that these two don't
really matter (in terms of tests of validity of CAPM) as long as:
1) we have a long time-series of data
2) the number of portfolios is not too small (even 5 portfolios suffices).

In fact, my current paper demonstrates that Fama-Macbeth CAPM test results
are extremely "sticky" (non-sensitive) to
1) # of portfolios
2) extimation period length
3) choice of market portfolio


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index