Hi @ktrathen Welcome! To me, that is merely a premise of the APT. I don't know about you, but I need examples. Using the CAPM to illustrate (as a special case of one factor) where E(r) = Rf + (Rm - Rf)*β, assume I told you that we can select among the following securities:
Security A has β(A,M) = 1.0 and expected return, Er(A) = 9.0%
Security B has β(B,M) = 1.25 and expected return, Er(A) = 10.50%
Security C has β(C,M) = 2.0 and expected return, Er(A) = 15.0%
If you buy $200.00 of A, then your portfolio beta is 1.0. How can you create a zero-beta portfolio? Since C has a beta of 2.0, you can short $100.0 of Security C. Now have you a zero-beta portfolio as given by (200% * +1.0) + (-100% * -2.0) = 0. The expected return is ($200 * 1.09) - ($100 * 1.15) = $18.00 - $15.00 = $3.00. That is a $3.00 / $100.0 = +3.00% return on your zero-beta portfolio. As a zero-beta portfolio, it has no risk, so its 3.0% should be the risk-free rate. And in fact, 3.0% must be the risk-free rate, if we solve for two unknowns:
C: Rf + 2.0*ERP = 15.0%
A: Rf + 1.0*ERP = 9.0%
... subtracting the second from the first, we see that ERP = 6.0% and Rf = 3.0%. By design, my three securities all lie on the SML. There exists alternative zero-beta portfolios. My portfolio is not a net-zero investment (it requires $100.0). But I can reduce the net investment (eg) if instead buy $200.00 of Portfolio A and short $200/1.25 = $160 of Portfolio B. This also gives me a zero-beta portfolio but the net investment is now only $200 - 160 = $40, and the expected return is still the risk-free rate (we expect +$1.20 on net $40.0 investment, or +3.0%). Any zero-beta portfolio should return the risk-free rate. I can keep going and get closer to a zero-beta portfolio that requires zero net investment.
My portfolios are all on the SML but if Security C instead has an expected return of 14.0%, then my first zero-beta portfolio would have an expected return of +4.00%, or +1.0% excess return. This would allow your or my to exploit with an arbitrage, in theory forcing the price of Security C to "get back on the SML line" (it begs be shorted more until its price is reduced and its expected return increases to 15% to match its beta) .
The zero-beta portfolio replaces the risk-free rate (and liberates APT relative to CAPM) because, if the factors fully explain excess returns, the zero-beta portfolio should return risk-free rate. So, to me, the more important assumption is that a zero-beta portfolio enforces prices. If you can construct a zero-beta portfolio by investing $100 (as in my first example), you can conduct an arbitrage. But that still requires funds. If we add the assumption that you can construct a zero-beta portfolio with zero net investment, then suddenly anybody/everybody can do that: nothing is required to exploit an arbitrage made possible wherever securities do not lie "on the line;" i.e., where they are too cheap or expensive for their beta. Both assumptions enable a premise that lets us conclude the APT should be valid given our assumptions (i.e., factors and their betas capture the risk/reward; all the idiosyncratic risk is diversified away; and arbitrage eliminates any discrepancies ... precisely because all participants can conduct arbitrage with zero-beta no-investment-required portfolios). I hope that's helpful!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.