Beyond CAPM: The Rise and Relevance of Arbitrage Pricing Theory in Modern Investment Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) has been common for identifying expected returns by analyzing an asset’s systematic risk in the market.. Nevertheless, to enhance the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), more sophisticated models are necessary, chiefly because of the model's presumption of a singular risk factor. This study focuses on the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) as an alternative, which incorporates multiple economic factors, offering a nuanced understanding of asset pricing and risk. This paper explores the distinctions between the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), while also examining the practical applications of APT within the context of real-world business scenarios. Additionally, the study employs a literature review methodology, augmented by a detailed exposition and evaluation of the APT framework for portfolio management and risk assessment, illustrated through selected case studies. Real-life and equity market evidence have been employed to explain the benefits of APT.The relevant analysis shows that the level of flexibility and risk assessment revealed by APT is higher than that in CAPM in the more complicated structure of the market. In this regard, this study provides evidence that APT is a useful model in the decision-making process of investment, especially when related to portfolio diversification and risks.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".