Why the CAPM Security Market Line Is Linear in Arithmetic Returns
Summary
The discussion examines why the CAPM security market line is straight despite a portfolio-return expression that includes a leverage-related quadratic term when returns are framed as exponential growth rates. The accepted response explains that the efficient frontier and CAPM relationship use arithmetic returns, which can be aggregated across assets. If risky-asset log returns are modeled as normally distributed, their moments must be converted to log-normal arithmetic-return moments before combining them with the risk-free asset.
The response also distinguishes mean arithmetic returns from median returns: the log-normal distribution does not have matching mean and median, so the median need not display the same linear relationship. Risk measured with conditional value at risk may also rise more rapidly with leverage because of log-normal non-normality. The discussion gives a conceptual explanation, not a derivation of the full CAPM, and notes in replies that CAPM is a simplified model rather than a guarantee of unlimited leveraged gains.
Key ideas
- CAPM’s linear relationship is expressed using arithmetic returns, which support cross-sectional aggregation.\nLog-return assumptions require conversion to log-normal arithmetic moments before combining assets.\nFor log-normal returns, the median arithmetic return does not share the mean’s properties.\nConditional value at risk can reflect a stronger increase in risk as leverage rises.
Tags
Full text
# Why is the CAPM securities market line straight?
# Why is the CAPM securities market line straight?
Let $\gamma$ be the expected return, in terms of its exponential growth rate, of the market asset. If we set $\gamma=\mu-\sigma^2/2$ as explained by the Doléans-Dade exponential, then the expected return of a balanced portfolio with fraction $\beta$ invested in the market asset, and the remainder lent or borrowed at risk-free rate, is $$R = r_f + \beta(\mu-r_f) - \beta^2\sigma^2/2.$$ I have plotted $R$ against $\beta$ in the following chart,
where for purposes of the chart $r_f=0.04$, $\gamma=0.13$, and $\sigma=0.2$. I know this effect is not my imagination, because Fernholz and others have quantified the "excess returns" of a balanced portfolio (where the green line lies above the red line) in their framework of "stochastic portfolio theory", and I myself have noticed this and alluded to it in my answer to How to calculate compound returns of leveraged ETFs?
Risk aversion notwithstanding, I find it absurd to think that unlimited expected gains are available simply by being highly leveraged in the market. So why does the CAPM use a straight line as if this were the case?
## Answer by John (score 3, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4533
The efficient frontier should be expressed in terms of arithmetic returns since only these returns can account for cross-sectional aggregation. Hence, if you assume the log returns of the risky portfolio are $X_{p} \sim N(\mu,\sigma^{2})$, then you first have to convert it to log-normal moments before combining it with the risk-free rate, $r_{f}$. However, it should be noted that while the median equals the mean for the normal distribution, that is not the case for the log normal distribution. Hence, the median arithmetic return will not show the same linear relationship against the standard deviation that the mean does. Similarly, if using CVaR as a measure of risk, then the risk will increase by even more as leverage increases due to the non-normality of the log normal distribution.
## Answer by Bob Jansen (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4531
The CAPM is just a model, not the truth nobody believes it. So you shouldn't apply it blindly. As a model it is useful but it has larger defects than this.
## Answer by ash (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4532
It is straight line because it is defined by y=mx+c equation. No other reason. It is not adequate and certainly something that you can to gain infinite returns. You want to make a model that accounts for convexity like you have , or use a multi factor model like Fama French or your own model which is evolving and is a N factor polynomial function ,please do so . Only reason why a linear approximation is used is because it is simple and sort of works. You can read about fama french model here .Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.