Pricing barrier options with simulations and sensitivity analysis with Greeks

Pricing barrier options with simulations and sensitivity analysis with Greeks

Shengyu ZHENG

In this article, Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023) explains the pricing of barrier options with Monte-Carlo simulations and the sensitivity analysis of barrier options from the perspective of Greeks.

Pricing of discretely monitored barrier options with Monte-Carlo simulations

With the simulation method, only the pricing of discretely monitored barrier options can be handled since it is impossible to simulate continuous price trajectories with no intervals. Here the method is illustrated with a down-and-out put option. The general setup of economic details of the down-and-out put option and related market information are presented as follows:

General setup of simulation for barrier option pricing

Similar to the simulation method for pricing standard vanilla options, Monte Carlo simulations based on Geometric Brownian Motion could also be employed to analyze the pricing of barrier options.

Figure 1. Trajectories of 600 price simulations.

With the R script presented above, we can simulate 6,000 times with the simprice() function from the derivmkts package. Trajectories of 600 price simulations are presented above, with the black line representing the mean of the final prices, the green dashed lines 1x and 2x standard deviation above the mean, the red dashed lines 1x and 2x derivation below the mean, the blue dashed line the strike level and the brown line the knock-out level.

The simprice() function, according to the documentation, computes simulated lognormal price paths with the given parameters.

With this simulation of 6,000 price paths, we arrive at a price of 0.6720201, which is quite close to the one calculated from the formulaic approach from the previous post.

Analysis of Greeks

The Greeks are the measures representing the sensitivity of the price of derivative products including options to a change in parameters such as the price and the volatility of the underlying asset, the risk-free interest rate, the passage of time, etc. Greeks are important elements to look at for risk management and hedging purposes, especially for market makers (dealers) since they do not essentially take these risks for themselves.

In R, with the combination of the greeks() function and a barrier pricing function, putdownout() in this case, we can easily arrive at the Greeks for this option.

Barrier option R code Sensitivity Greeks

Table 1. Greeks of the Down-and-Out Put

Barrier Option Greeks Summary

We can also have a look at the evolutions of the Greeks with the change of one of the parameters. The following R script presents an example of the evolutions of the Greeks along with the changes in the strike price of the down-and-out put option.

Barrier option R code Sensitivity Greeks Evolution

Figure 2. Evolution of Greeks with the change of Strike Price of a Down-and-Out Put

Evolution Greeks Barrier Price

Download R file to price barrier options

You can find below an R file (file with txt format) to price barrier options.

Download R file to price barrier options

Why should I be interested in this post?

As one of the most traded but the simplest exotic derivative products, barrier options open an avenue for different applications. They are also very often incorporated in structured products, such as reverse convertibles. It is, therefore, important to be equipped with knowledge of this product and to understand the pricing logics if one aspires to work in the domain of market finance.

Simulation methods are very common in pricing derivative products, especially for those without closed-formed pricing formulas. This post only presents a simple example of pricing barrier options and much optimization is needed for pricing more complex products with more rounds of simulations.

Related posts on the SimTrade blog

   ▶ All posts about Options

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Barrier options

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Pricing barrier options with analytical formulas

Useful resources

Academic articles

Broadie, M., Glasserman P., Kou S. (1997) A Continuity Correction for Discrete Barrier Option. Mathematical Finance, 7:325-349.

Merton, R. (1973) Theory of Rational Option Pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4:141-183.

Paixao, T. (2012) A Guide to Structured Products – Reverse Convertible on S&P500

Reiner, E.S., Rubinstein, M. (1991) Breaking down the barriers. Risk Magazine, 4(8), 28–35.

Rich, D. R. (1994) The Mathematical Foundations of Barrier Option-Pricing Theory. Advances in Futures and Options Research: A Research Annual, 7:267-311.

Wang, B., Wang, L. (2011) Pricing Barrier Options using Monte Carlo Methods, Working paper.

Books

Haug, E. (1997) The Complete Guide to Option Pricing. London/New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hull, J. (2006) Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

About the author

The article was written in June 2022 by Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023).

Asset Allocation

Asset Allocation

Akshit Gupta

This article written by Akshit GUPTA (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2019-2022) explains asset allocation, a much-discussed topic in asset management.

Introduction

Asset allocation refers to the process of dividing an investment among different assets and, at a more integrated level, asset classes, sectors of the economy and geographical areas.

The allocation of an investor’s money across different assets can be analyzed according to different dimensions: investment objective, risk profile, and time horizon. The allocation process helps in finding a right balance between these dimensions and ultimately generates optimal returns in terms of expected return and risk. A key concept underlying asset allocation is diversification.

There are several assets in financial markets that the investor can use in his/her asset allocation. These asset classes include traditional assets like equities, bonds and cash, and alternative assets like real estates, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. Investors may also use combinations of such basic assets like mutual funds, exchange trade funds and more complex products like structured products.

Basics of asset allocation

Characteristics of investors

The characteristics of asset allocation for investors comes from its significant impact on the portfolio performance. Asset allocation decisions rely on input of the process: investment objective, risk profile, and time horizon.

Investment objective

The process of asset allocation impacts the financial objectives of the investor. If the investor has a low-risk appetite, he/she might be exposed to high degree of risk by investing in equities. Thus, such an investor should invest in safer assets such as bonds and fixed deposits to have a low-risk portfolio.

Risk Profile

The risk appetite of an investor determines the mix of different asset classes in a portfolio. Investors aiming for low risk should include a comparatively higher mix of risk less assets like bonds and real estate than equities.

Time horizon

The time horizon of an investment is also an important characteristic of the asset allocation process. Investors can either invest for a long-term time horizon or a short term depending on their investment objective.

Characteristics of assets

The characteristics of asset allocation comes from its significant impact on the portfolio performance. Asset allocation decisions can also rely on asset’s features such as: Expected returns, risk, and correlation.

Expected returns

The main focus of any investment in financial markets is to make maximum profits (returns) within a coherent risk level. Different asset classes have traditionally offered different returns, determined by their risk levels and market correlation. Generally, bonds have offered a lower long-term return as compared to the equity markets. Thus, investors aiming for higher returns should include an higher mix of these high return asset classes like equities than bonds.

Risk

Different asset classes have different characteristics and thus, different risk levels. The bonds market is generally considered less risky as compared to the equity markets. Thus, investment in bonds exposes the investor to a lower degree of risk than investing in equities.

Correlation

Different asset classes differ in their correlation which is also an important factor while deciding the optimal portfolio mix. It is possible that one asset class might be increasing in value whereas the other may be decreasing in value. For example, if the bonds markets are trending upwards, it is possible that the equity markets might be falling. Thus, by having an optimal mix of these asset, the investor can be compensated for the losses in equity markets with gains in the bond markets. Degree of correlation plays an important role in protecting the investor from downfalls in one asset class by compensating the losses with gains in other asset class.

Asset allocation processes

The asset allocation processes can be divided into two types: strategic asset allocation and tactical asset allocation.

Strategic asset allocation

Strategic asset allocation is a long-term investment strategy driven by long term market outlook and fundamental trends in the market. The strategy follows a top-down approach, and the investor generally looks at the macro level trends followed by trends in different asset classes to take the investment decisions. The investor following this allocation type generally has a pre-defined return expectation and risk tolerance levels and practices diversification to lower the risk. These investments are made in traditional assets like equities, bonds and cash assets but can also include alternative assets.

The investor follows a fixed objective which remains unchanged throughout the investment horizon. This can include a policy mix of investing 40% of portfolio in equities, 30% in bonds, 10% in real estate and remaining 20% in cash. As opposed to the tactical asset allocation, strategic asset allocation involves periodical rebalancing of the portfolio to get higher returns. If the investor diverges from the fixed objective, he/she must rebalance the portfolio to unify it with the original mix.

This strategy is suited to new or irregular investors who seek to generate returns at par with the market returns. The standard asset class suited for this strategy includes mutual funds, ETFs, blue-chip equities, bonds, fixed deposits, and real estate.

Tactical asset allocation

Tactical asset allocation involves actively investing in asset and securities to enhance portfolio returns by constantly rebalancing the portfolio and exploiting market anomalies. Even though the investor is following strategic asset allocation, the financial markets often present attractive buying or selling opportunities which can be exploited by tactical asset allocation to attain even higher returns. These opportunities can involve cyclical deviations in businesses, momentum trends and exploiting under valuations. However, these deviations from strategic allocation are often done carefully so as not to hinder the long-term objective.

The investment horizon in this strategy can be short or long depending on the investor’s preferences. However, the investor tries to generate higher returns and constantly rebalances the portfolio to achieve these returns by exploiting the market inefficiencies. Tactical asset allocation requires good understanding of the financial markets and is generally practiced by experienced investors with moderate to high risk tolerance.

Asset allocation over time

The investors deciding on the asset allocation process over time can follow different approaches, which includes:

Passive management: the buy-and-hold approach

In a passive asset management, the aim of the investor is to replicate the performance of a benchmark index. These investors can have lower risk appetite; thus, replications help to reduce the risk exposure for them. The investors following a passive approach can buy the individual components of the index by applying similar weights and invest with a moderate to long term time horizon in mind. The suitable asset classes for such investors can include mutual funds, exchange traded funds, index funds, etc.

Active management: dynamic asset allocation

In active asset management, the aim of the investor is to maximize the returns on the portfolio by actively investing in asset classes. The portfolio mix is frequently adjusted to capitalize on the short-term trends across different asset classes. The rebalancing decisions are based on business and economic cycles, momentum trends, relative valuations across different asset classes and macro factors like inflation, GDP growth, etc. The investor tries to beat the benchmark indices by dynamically trading in different asset classes and exploiting the market inefficiencies. They generally have high risk appetite and good knowledge about different asset classes. The suitable asset classes for such investors can include equities, commodities, and bonds.

Useful resources

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Asset Allocation

Related Posts

   ▶ Youssef LOURAOUI Systematic risk and specific risk

   ▶ Youssef LOURAOUI Portfolio

About the author

Article written in July 2022 by Akshit GUPTA (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2019-2022).

Pricing barrier options with analytical formulas

Pricing barrier options with analytical formulas

Shengyu ZHENG

As is mentioned in the previous post, the frequency of monitoring is one of the determinants of the price of a barrier option. The higher the frequency, the more likely a barrier event would take place.

In this article, Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023) explains the pricing of continuously and discretely monitored barrier options with analytical formulas.

Pricing of standard continuously monitored barrier options

For pricing standard barrier options, we cannot simply apply the Black-Sholes-Merton Formula for the particularity of the barrier conditions. There are, however, several models available developed on top of this theoretical basis. Among them, models developed by Merton (1973), Reiner and Rubinstein (1991) and Rich (1994) enabled the pricing of continuously monitored barrier options to be conducted in a formulaic fashion. They are concisely put together by Haug (1997) as follows:

Knock-in and knock-out barrier option pricing formula

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

Pricing of standard discretely monitored barrier options

For discretely monitored barrier options, Broadie and Glasserman (1997) derived an adjustment that is applicable on top of the pricing formulas of the continuously monitored counterparts.

Let’s denote:

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

The price of a discretely monitored barrier option of a certain barrier price equals the price of a continuously monitored barrier option of the adjusted price plus an error:

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

The adjusted barrier price, in this case, would be:

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

It is also worth noting that the error term o(·) grows prominently when the barrier approaches the strike price. A threshold of 5% from the strike price should be imposed if this approach is employed for pricing discretely monitored barrier options.

Example of pricing a down-and-out put with R with the formulaic approach

The general setup of economic details of the Down-and-Out Put and related market information is presented as follows:

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

There are built-in functions in the “derivmkts” library that render directly the prices of barrier options of continuous monitoring, such as calldownin(), callupin(), calldownout(), callupout(), putdownin(), putupin(), putdownout(), and putupout (). By incorporating the adjustment proposed by Broadie and Glasserman (1997), all barrier options of both monitoring methods could be priced in a formulaic way with the following function:

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

For example, for a down-and-out Put option with the aforementioned parameters, we can use this function to calculate the prices.

Knock-in barrier option pricing formula

For continuous monitoring, we get a price of 0.6264298, and for daily discrete monitoring, we get a price of 0.676141. It makes sense that for a down-and-out put option, a lower frequency of barrier monitoring means less probability of a knock-out event, thus less protection for the seller from extreme downside price trajectories. Therefore, the seller would charge a higher premium for this put option.

Download R file to price barrier options

You can find below an R file (file with txt format) to price barrier options.

Download R file to price barrier options

Why should I be interested in this post?

As one of the most traded but the simplest exotic derivative products, barrier options open an avenue for different applications. They are also very often incorporated in structured products, such as reverse convertibles. It is, therefore, important to understand the elements having an impact on their prices and the closed-form pricing formulas are a good presentation of these elements.

Related posts on the SimTrade blog

   ▶ All posts about options

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Barrier options

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Pricing barrier options with simulations and sensitivity analysis with Greeks

Useful resources

Academic research articles

Broadie, M., Glasserman P., Kou S. (1997) A Continuity Correction for Discrete Barrier Option. Mathematical Finance, 7:325-349.

Merton, R. (1973) Theory of Rational Option Pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4:141-183.

Paixao, T. (2012) A Guide to Structured Products – Reverse Convertible on S&P500

Reiner, E.S., Rubinstein, M. (1991) Breaking down the barriers. Risk Magazine, 4(8), 28–35.

Rich, D. R. (1994) The Mathematical Foundations of Barrier Option-Pricing Theory. Advances in Futures and Options Research: A Research Annual, 7:267-311.

Wang, B., Wang, L. (2011) Pricing Barrier Options using Monte Carlo Methods, Working paper.

Books

Haug, E. (1997) The Complete Guide to Option Pricing. London/New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hull, J. (2006) Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

About the author

The article was written in July 2022 by Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023).

Barrier options

Barrier options

Shengyu ZHENG

In this article, Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023) explains barrier options which are the most traded exotic options in derivatives markets.

Description

Barrier options are path dependent. Their payoffs are not only a function of the price of the underlying asset relative to the option strike, but also depend on whether the price of the underlying asset reached a certain predefined barrier during the life of the option.

The two most common kinds of barrier options are knock-in (KI) and knock-out (KO) options.

Knock-in (KI) barrier options

KI barrier options are options that are activated only if the underlying asset attains a prespecified barrier level (the “knock-in” event). With the absence of this knock-in event, the payoff remains zero regardless of the trajectory of the price of the underlying asset.

Knock-out (KO) barrier options

KO barrier options are options that are deactivated only if the underlying asset attains a prespecified barrier level (the “knock-out” event). In the presence of this knock-out event, the payoff remains zero regardless of the trajectory of the price of the underlying asset.

Observation

The determination of the occurrence of a barrier event (KI or KO conditions) is essential to the ultimate payoff of the barrier option. In practice, the details of the KI or KO conditions are precisely defined in the contract (called “Confirmations” by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) for over-the counter (OTC) traded options).

Observation period

The observation period denotes the period where a barrier event (KI or KO) can be observed, that is to say, when the price of the underlying asset is monitored. There are three styles of observation period: European style, partial-period American style, and full-period American style.

  • European style: The observation period is only the expiration date of the barrier option.
  • Partial-period American style: The observation period is part of the lifespan of the barrier option.
  • Full-period American style: The observation period spans the whole period from the effective date to the expiration date of the barrier option.

Monitoring method

There are two typical types of monitoring methods in terms of the determination of a knock-in/knock-out event: continuous monitoring and discrete monitoring. The monitoring method is one of the key factors in determining the premium of a barrier option.

  • Continuous monitoring: A knock-in/knock-out event is deemed to take place if, at any time in the observation period, the knock-in/knock-out condition is met.
  • Discrete monitoring: A knock-in/knock-out event is deemed to occur if, at pre-specific times in the observation period, usually the closing time of each trading day, the knock-in/knock-out condition is met.

Barrier Reference Asset

For the most cases, the Barrier Reference Asset is the underlying asset itself. However, if specified in the contract, it can be another asset or index. It can also be other calculatable properties, such as the volatility of the asset. In this case, the methodology of calculating such properties should be clearly defined in the contract.

Rebate

For knock-out options, there could be a rebate. A rebate is an extra feature and it corresponds to the amount that should be paid to the buyer of the knock-out option in case of the occurrence of a knock-out event.

In-out parity relation for barrier options

Analogous to the call-put parity relation for plain vanilla options, there is an in-out parity relation for barrier options stating that a long position in a knock-in option plus a long position in a knock-out option with identical strikes, barriers, monitoring methods and maturity is equivalent to a long position in a comparable vanilla option. It could be stated as follows:

Knock-in knock-out barrier option parity relation

Where K denotes the strike price, T the maturity, and B the barrier level.

It is worth noting that this parity relation is valid only when the two KI and KO options are identical, and there is no rebate in case of a knock-out option.

Basic barrier options

There are four types of basic barrier options traded in the market: up-and-in option, up-and-out option, down-and-in option, and down-and-out option. “Up” and “down” denotes the direction of surpassing the barrier price. “In” and “out” depict the type of barrier condition, i.e. knock-in or knock-out. These four types of barrier features are available for both call and put options.

Up-and-in option

An up-and-in option is a knock-in option whose barrier condition is achieved if the underlying price arrives higher than the barrier level during the observation period.

Figure 1 illustrates the occurrence of an up-and-in barrier event for a barrier option with full-period American style and discrete monitoring (the closing time of each trading day).

Figure 1. Illustration of an up-and-in barrier option
Example of an up-and-in call option

Up-and-out option

An up-and-out option is a knock-out option whose barrier condition is achieved if the underlying price arrives higher than the barrier level during the observation period.

Figure 2. Illustration of an up-and-out option

Example of an up-and-out call option

Down-and-in option

A down-and-in option is a knock-in option whose barrier condition is achieved if the underlying price arrives lower than the barrier level during the observation period.

Figure 3. Illustration of a down-and-in option
Example of a down-and-in call option

Down-and-out option

A down-and-out option is a knock-out option whose barrier condition is achieved if the underlying price arrives lower than the barrier level during the observation period.

Figure 4. Illustration of a down-and-out option
Example of a down-and-out call option

Download R file to price barrier options

You can find below an R file to price barrier options.

Download R file to price barrier options

Trading of barrier options

Being the most popular exotic options, barrier options on stocks or indices have been actively traded in the OTC market since the inception of the market. Unavailable in standard exchanges, they are less accessible than their vanilla counterparts. Barrier options are also commonly utilized in structured products.

Why should I be interested in this post?

As one of the most traded but the simplest exotic derivative products, barrier options open an avenue for different applications. They are also very often incorporated in structured products, such as reverse convertibles. Knock-in/knock out conditions are also common features in other types of more complicated exotic derivative products.

It is, therefore, important to be equipped with knowledge of this product and to understand the pricing logics if one aspires to work in financial markets.

Related posts on the SimTrade blog

   ▶ All posts about options

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Pricing barrier options with analytical formulas

   ▶ Shengyu ZHENG Pricing barrier options with simulations and sensitivity analysis with Greeks

References

Academic research articles

Broadie, M., Glasserman P., Kou S. (1997) A Continuity Correction for Discrete Barrier Option. Mathematical Finance, 7:325-349.

Merton, R. (1973) Theory of Rational Option Pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4:141-183.

Paixao, T. (2012) A Guide to Structured Products – Reverse Convertible on S&P500

Reiner, E.S., Rubinstein, M. (1991) Breaking down the barriers. Risk Magazine, 4(8), 28–35.

Rich, D. R. (1994) The Mathematical Foundations of Barrier Option-Pricing Theory. Advances in Futures and Options Research: A Research Annual, 7:267-311.

Wang, B., Wang, L. (2011) Pricing Barrier Options using Monte Carlo Methods, Working paper.

Books

Haug, E. (1997) The Complete Guide to Option Pricing. London/New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hull, J. (2006) Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

About the author

The article was written in July 2022 by Shengyu ZHENG (ESSEC Business School, Grande Ecole Program – Master in Management, 2020-2023).

Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method

Youssef_Louraoui

In this article, Youssef Louraoui (Bayes Business School, MSc. Energy, Trade & Finance, 2021-2022) presents the Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method used to test asset pricing models.

This article is structured as follow: we introduce the Fama-MacBeth testing method. Then, we present the mathematical foundation that underpins their approach. We conclude with a practical case study followed by a discussion on econometric issues.

Introduction

Risk factors are frequently employed to explain asset returns in asset pricing theories. These risk factors may be macroeconomic (such as consumer inflation or unemployment) or microeconomic (such as firm size or various accounting and financial metrics of the firms). The Fama-MacBeth two-step regression approach a practical way for measuring how correctly these risk factors explain asset or portfolio returns. The aim of the model is to determine the risk premium associated with the exposure to these risk factors.

The first step is to regress the return of every asset against one or more risk factors using a time-series approach. We obtain the return exposure to each factor called the “betas” or the “factor exposures” or the “factor loadings”.

The second step is to regress the returns of all assets against the asset betas obtained in Step 1 using a cross-section approach. We obtain the risk premium for each factor. Then, Fama and MacBeth assess the expected premium over time for a unit exposure to each risk factor by averaging these coefficients once for each element.

Mathematical foundations

We describe below the mathematical foundations for the Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method.

Step 1: time-series analysis of returns

The model considers the following inputs:

  • The return of N assets denoted by Ri for asset i observed over the time period [0, T].
  • The risk factors denoted by F1 for the market factor influencing the asset returns.

For each asset i from 1 to N, we estimate the following parameters:

img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_time_series

From this model, we obtain a series of coefficients: αi which is the risk premium for asset i and the βi, F1 associated to the market risk factor.

Figure 1 represents for a given asset the regression of a return with respect to the market factor (as in the CAPM). The slope of the regression line corresponds to the market beta of the regression.

Figure 1 Time-series regression.
 Time-series regression Source : computation by the author.

The econometric issues (estimation bias, heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation) related to the model are discussed in more details in the econometric limitation section.

Step 2: cross-sectional analysis of returns

For each period t from 1 to T, we estimate the following linear regression model:

img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_cross_section

Figure 2 plots for a given period the cross-sectional returns and betas for a given point in time.

Figure 2 represents for a given period the regression of the return of all individual assets with respect to their estimated individual market beta.

Figure 2. Cross-sectional regression.
 Time-series regression Source: computation by the author.

We average the gamma obtained for each data point. This is the way the Fama-MacBeth method is used to test asset pricing models.

Empirical study by Fama and MacBeth (1973)

Fama-MacBeth performed a second time the cross-sectional regression of monthly stock returns on the equity betas computed on the initial workings to account for the dynamic nature of stock returns, which help to compute a robust standard error to gauge the level of error and assess if there is any heteroscedasticity in the regression. The conclusion of the seminal paper suggests that the beta is “dead”, in the sense that it cannot explain returns on its own (Fama and MacBeth, 1973).

New empirical study

We downloaded a sample of end-of-month stock prices of large firms in the US economy over the period from March 31, 2016, to March 31, 2022. We computed monthly returns. To represent the market, we chose the S&P500 index.

We then applied the Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method to test the market factor (CAPM).

Figure 3 depicts the computation of average returns and the betas and stock in the analysis.

Figure 3. Computation of average returns and betas of the stocks.
img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_method_4 Source: computation by the author.

Figure 4 represents the first step of the Fama-MacBeth regression. We regress the average returns for each stock with their respective betas.

Figure 4. Step 1 of the regression: Time-series analysis of returns
img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_method_1 Source: computation by the author.

The initial regression is statistically evaluated. To describe the behaviour of the regression, we employ a t-statistic. Since the p-value is in the rejection area (less than the significance limit of 5 percent), we can deduce that the market factor can at first explain the returns of an investor. However, as we are going deal in the later in the article, when we account for a second regression as formulated by Fama and MacBeth, the market factor is not capable of explaining on its own the return of asset returns.

Figure 5 represents Step 2 of the Fama-MacBeth regression, where we perform for a given data point a regression of all individual stock returns with their respective estimated market beta.

Figure 5. Step 2: cross-sectional analysis of return.
img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_method_2 Source : computation by the author.

Figure 6 represents the hypothesis testing for the cross-sectional regression. From the results obtained, we can clearly see that the p-value is not in the rejection area (at a 5% significance level), hence we cannot reject the null hypothesis. This means that the market factor fails to explain properly the behaviour of asset returns, which undermines the validity of the CAPM framework. These results are in line with the Fama-MacBeth paper (1973).

Figure 6. Hypothesis testing of the cross-sectional regression.
img_SimTrade_Fama_MacBeth_method_1 Source: computation by the author.

Excel file for the Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method

You can find below the Excel spreadsheet that complements the explanations covered in this article to apply the Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method.

 Download the Excel file to perform a Fama-MacBeth two-step regression method

Econometric issues

Errors in data measurement

Because regression uses a sample instead of the entire population, a certain margin of error must be accounted for since the authors derive estimated betas for the sample.

Asset return heteroscedasticity

In econometrics, heteroscedasticity is an important concern since it results in unequal residual variance. This indicates that a time series exhibiting some heteroscedasticity has a non-constant variance, which renders forecasting ineffective because the time series will not revert to its long-run mean.

Asset return autocorrelation

Standard errors in Fama-MacBeth regressions are solely corrected for cross-sectional correlation. This method does not fix the standard errors for time-series autocorrelation. This is typically not a concern for stock trading, as daily and weekly holding periods have modest time-series autocorrelation, whereas autocorrelation is larger over long horizons. This suggests that Fama-MacBeth regression may not be applicable in many corporate finance contexts where project holding durations are typically lengthy.

Limitation of CAPM

Roll: selection of the appropriate market index

For the CAPM to be valid, we need to determine if the market portfolio is in the Markowitz efficient curve. According to Roll (1977), the market portfolio is not observable because it cannot capture all the asset classes (human capital, art, and real estate among others). He then believes that the returns cannot be captured effectively and hence makes the market portfolio, not a reliable factor in determining its efficiency.

Furthermore, the coefficients are sensitive to the market index chosen for the study. These shortcomings must be taken into account when assessing other CAPM studies.

Fama-MacBeth: Stability of the coefficients

The stability of the beta across time is difficult. Fama-MacBeth attempted to address this shortcoming by implementing its innovative approach. However, some points need to be addressed:

When betas are computed using a monthly time series, the statistical noise of the time series is considerably reduced as opposed to shorter time frames (i.e., daily observation).

Constructing portfolio betas makes the coefficient much more stable than when assessing individual betas. This is due to the diversification effect that a portfolio can achieve, reducing considerably the amount of specific risk.

Why should I be interested in this post?

Fama-MacBeth made a significant contribution to the field of econometrics. Their findings cleared the way for asset pricing theory to gain traction in academic literature. The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is far too simplistic for a real-world scenario since the market factor is not the only source that drives returns; asset return is generated from a range of factors, each of which influences the overall return. This framework helps in capturing other sources of return.

Related posts on the SimTrade blog

▶ Jayati WALIA Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

▶ Youssef LOURAOUI Security Market Line (SML)

▶ Youssef LOURAOUI Origin of factor investing

▶ Youssef LOURAOUI Factor Investing

Useful resources

Academic research

Brooks, C., 2019. Introductory Econometrics for Finance (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108524872

Fama, E. F., MacBeth, J. D., 1973. Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 607–636.

Roll R., 1977. A critique of the Asset Pricing Theory’s test, Part I: On Past and Potential Testability of the Theory. Journal of Financial Economics, 1, 129-176.

American Finance Association & Journal of Finance (2008) Masters of Finance: Eugene Fama (YouTube video)

Business Analysis

NEDL. 2022. Fama-MacBeth regression explained: calculating risk premia (Excel). [online] Available at: [Accessed 29 May 2022].

About the author

The article was written in May 2022 by Youssef LOURAOUI (Bayes Business School, MSc. Energy, Trade & Finance, 2021-2022).