Empirical Test of Single Factor and Multi-Factor Asset Pricing Models: Evidence from Non Financial Firms on the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the explanatory power of a uni-factor asset pricing model (CAPM) against a multi-factor model (The Fama-French three factor model) in explaining excess portfolio returns on non-financial firms on the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE). Data covering the period January 2002 to December 2011 were used. A six Size- Book-to-Market (BTM) ratio portfolios were formed and used for the analysis. The paper revealed that, a uni-factor model like the (CAPM) could not predict satisfactorily, the excess portfolio returns on the Ghana Stock Exchange. By using the multi-factor asset pricing model, that is, the Fama-French Three Factor Model, excess portfolio returns were better explained. It is then conclusive enough that, the multi-factor asset pricing model introduced by Fama and French (1992) was a better asset pricing model to explain excess portfolio returns on the Ghana Stock Exchange than the Capital Assets Pricing Model (CAPM) and that there exist the firm size and BTM effects on the Ghanaian Stock market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".