Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the Douala Stock Exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines if the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be applied to the Douala Stock Exchange. The study utilized monthly stock returns from the three companies listed on the Douala Stock Exchange (DSX), for the period 30th April 2009 to 31st August 2017. Ordinary Least Square regression analysis was adopted for the study to examine if individual stocks can predict a better stock beta. The Black, Jensen, and Scholes (1972) CAPM version were also examined in this study to assess the validity of the zero beta estimate. The result of the individual estimates could not establish the validity of the CAPM theory. Further analysis showed that the Beta for the three assets combined portfolio was not statistically significant. However, when two securities were combined into a single asset portfolio, the portfolio bêta was statistically significant. The significant result of the two asset portfolio confirms that Beta was a linear function of security returns in the DSX market. The study concludes that there will be a need for the government of Cameroun to liberalize the DSX market and allow more firms to be quoted on the floor of the exchange. This decision will allow for the deepening of the DSX market, enhance the liquidity level of the market, and enable investors to reap adequate returns from their investment through holding a portfolio of assets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".