Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:42:03.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Relationship between the Systematic Risk and the Investment Horizon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Cheng F. Lee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jensen [6] employed the instantaneous systematic risk concept to eliminate the problem associated with time horizon. Based upon the effective rate of return argument, Cheng and Deets [3] claimed that Jensen instantaneous risk is not independent of the time horizon used in the investment analysis. They have also proposed a so-called Cheng-Deets instantaneous risk to substitute for the Jensen instantaneous risk.

Following the log normal distribution assumption, this paper has shown that Cheng-Deets instantaneous risk is identical to Jensen instantaneous risk. The relationship between finite systematic risk and instantaneous risk is also identified. The roles played by the effective and the nominal rate-of-return concepts in the capital asset pricing process are also clarified. It is shown that both Jensen and CD instantaneous risks are biased unless the investment horizon is instantaneous. A testable generalized CAPM is derived to test the instantaneous investment horizon assumption. Finally, 30 securities of the Dow- Jones industrial average were used to test the generalized CAPM derived in this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , December 1976 , pp. 803 - 815
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1976

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]Aitchison, J., and Brown, J. A. C.. The Log Normal Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[2]Arrow, K.; Chenery, H.; Minhas, B.; and Solow, . “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 43 (1961), pp. 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Cheng, P. L., and Deets, M. K.. “Systematic Risk and the Horizon Problem.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8 (1973), pp. 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Hogg, R., and Craig, A.. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969.Google Scholar
[5]Jacob, N. J. “Comment: Systematic Risk and the Horizon Problem.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 8 (1973), pp. 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Jensen, M. C. “Risk, the Pricing of Capital Assets, and the Evaluation of Investment Portfolio.” Journal of Business (April 1969), pp. 167–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Levy, H. “Portfolio Performance and the Investment Horizon.” Management Science, Vol. 18 (1972), pp. B645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Lintner, J. “Security Prices, Risk, and Maximal Gains from Diversification.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 20 (1965), pp. 587–616.Google Scholar
[9]Merton, R. C. “An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Econometrica. Vol. 41 (1973), pp. 867–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Mossin, J. “Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market.” Econometrica, Vol. 34 (1966), pp. 768–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Sharpe, W. F. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Condition of Risk.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 19 (1964), pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
[12]Theil, H.Principles of Econometrics. New York: Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
[13]Zarembka, P. “On the Empirical Relevance of the CES Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 52 (1970), pp. 47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar