Bernstein Goes to Bat for “C.R.A.P.” CAPM
| Feb 20th, 2007 | Filed under: CAPM / Alpha Theory | By: Alpha Male |
|
The weekly investment newsletter “Outside the Box” picks up where a previous edition left off – with James Montier’s assertion that “CAPM is CRAP“. This week’s edition contains an interview with Peter Bernstein and James Montier conducted by Kathryn Welling. As newsletter editor John Mauldin correctly observes, the article is “double the length of normal”. Mauldin bills the interview as “Bernstein taking on (Montier’s) criticism of CAPM”. But unfortunately for those pining for a grudge-match (like us), there seems to be a lot of agreement between Montier and Bernstein.
As you may recall, Montier argues that CAPM is too theoretical to be of any use. He reiterates his position to Welling:
“CAPM is still the only thing that is taught in business schools around the world–perhaps with arbitrage pricing theory, but the central formula is the same there. So students still come out with their MBAs, having been drilled in CAPM, and practitioners still use these models. Yet I can’t help but think that the behavioral critiques that have been leveled at a lot of your “capital ideas” do actually invalidate the use of CAPM, for instance, in all sorts of ways.
“…whilst Peter is emphasizing the benefits that CAPM has provided in terms of alpha and beta separation, I suspect those benefits are probably clearer on paper than they are in practice, put it that way. But even if we accept that there are benefits from alpha and beta separation, it should also be recognized that CAPM has delivered some very undesirable side effects.”
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
[...] I saw that debate between Peter Bernstein and James Montier. I think Bernstein is spot-on when he says CAPM shapes the way we think about markets and about managing money. I’d argue that the whole idea of benchmarking comes from that sort of thinking. But we now need to move on. I’d argue that there is something beyond these ideas from the 1960’s.  I attempt to address this by writing a book – but it contains just one point of view. It’s certainly not going to replace financial textbooks. But we need to move beyond orthodox finance which argues that markets are perfectly efficient and random.  That is so untrue it hurts.    [...]
[...] University of Toronto’s Felix Chee on efficient markets: “Markets are efficient, just not effective. Markets are virtually frictionless †that is, they price securities according to all available information very quickly. But markets are not good at determining if this information is fact or fiction.” (Ed: This “ineffectiveness†is reminiscent of Bernstein’s “macro-inefficiency†argument). [...]
[...] Even if markets for many individual securities are efficient, inefficiencies can also exist on a macro scale. In a recent interview, Peter Bernstein characterized markets as ”macro-inefficient”: “The market is hard to beat. Nobody says it isn’t. But the markets are macro-inefficient and this means that risk and return for the market as a whole can go haywire.” [...]
[...] Vanguard puts a decidedly behavioral spin on the search for alpha that is reminiscent of a debate between Peter Bernstein and James Montier last year (see related posting). “As long as investors make behavioral and informational errors, there will be opportunities to outperform the market. Many investing decisions are emotionally driven. On any given day, investors may underreact or overreact to news, trading securities at prices unequal to their real values.” [...]