An in-depth exploration of CAPM, beta, expanded CAPM approaches, and multifactor models for estimating required returns in equity valuation.
Sometimes, when I’m reminiscing about my early days in finance, I recall the first time I encountered the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). I was sitting in a small investment analytics department, basically rummaging through piles of corporate data. My boss asked me to figure out a company’s “required rate of return,” and I, with a curious look, dutifully nodded, trying not to seem clueless. Fast-forward a few hours and, well, the CAPM formula became my new best friend. You’ll probably have your own “aha” moment with CAPM, too—so let’s walk through it to make sure that moment comes sooner rather than later.
At its core, the Capital Asset Pricing Model links a security’s expected return to its systematic risk. Put differently, CAPM says that investors should earn more for taking on more non-diversifiable (market) risk. The formula (in its widely used form) is:
where:
• \( R_e \) is the required (or expected) return on equity (or a stock).
• \( R_f \) is the risk-free rate, typically measured as the yield on a short-term government treasury instrument.
• \( \beta \) is the stock’s sensitivity to the overall market’s movements.
• \( ERP \) (Equity Risk Premium) is the additional return investors demand over \( R_f \) for investing in the market portfolio rather than a risk-free asset.
The brilliance of CAPM is that it directly links return to market risk in a single factor. For instance, if we take a scenario where \( R_f = 3% \), the Equity Risk Premium is, say, 6%, and the beta (\(\beta\)) of the stock is 1.2, then:
This 10.2% is a straightforward yardstick to gauge whether an investment is “appropriately priced,” given its market risk.
Beta (\(\beta\)) measures the sensitivity of a security’s returns to changes in the overall market. A beta of 1 means the security moves roughly in line with the market—if the market goes up 10%, you’d expect the stock to go up about 10%. A beta of:
• 1.2 implies it’s 20% more volatile than the market
• 0.8 implies it’s 20% less volatile than the market
• Negative beta implies the security tends to move opposite the market
In real life, we estimate beta by regressing a stock’s (or portfolio’s) returns on the market’s returns (e.g., the S&P 500). Let’s say you run a regression, and your slope coefficient is 1.2. Then your stock’s beta is 1.2. But be aware, betas can shift over time. If a firm changes its capital structure, merges with another company, or shifts its business strategy, the historical beta may not be a perfect predictor of future behavior.
The CAPM rests on several assumptions—some might say leaps of faith:
In the real world, well, it’s not that neat. There are taxes, transaction costs, limited borrowing capacity, and big differences in how investors view risk. This mismatch leads us to either refine CAPM or use alternative models.
Have you ever looked at a small biotech start-up and thought, “Ok, its beta is 0.9, so it’s less risky than the broad market”? You might question that conclusion because start-ups can be much riskier than the big companies that dominate the indices. CAPM, in its classic form, often overlooks company-specific details, like liquidity risk, the possibility of negative earnings, or macro shocks to smaller industries. That’s why practitioners often incorporate “add-ons” or alternative risk factors.
To address some of CAPM’s shortcomings, analysts sometimes add premiums for size, liquidity, or country risk. The expanded CAPM might look something like this:
These additional terms reflect unique risks that might not be fully captured by the market factor alone.
You might ask: “So how do we pick a ‘size premium’ or ‘country risk premium’?” Generally, valuation practitioners turn to data providers who track historical returns. For instance, research from sources like Ibbotson or Duff & Phelps can guide how big the size premium typically is. For country risk premiums, analysts often consult emerging market bond spreads or the yield differential between a foreign country’s sovereign debt and U.S. Treasuries (or another safe benchmark).
In the early ’90s, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French introduced a three-factor model to improve upon CAPM by adding:
The result is:
where \(\beta_{Mkt}, \beta_{SMB}, \beta_{HML}\) measure exposure to the overall market, size premium, and value premium, respectively. This model recognizes that small-cap and value stocks have often outperformed large-cap and growth stocks over long periods, though that advantage can vary year to year.
Mark Carhart then added the momentum factor to the Fama–French framework, creating a four-factor model. Momentum is the tendency for stocks that have performed well recently to continue performing well (and vice versa) in the short term. In practice:
Momentum Factor (MOM): The differential return of stocks ranked by recent performance (winners minus losers).
CAPM is neat and easy, but it doesn’t capture everything. Multifactor models can help explain more of the variation in stock returns by acknowledging other systematic sources of risk. If you’re working at a hedge fund or progressive asset management firm, you’ll see these multifactor approaches used heavily for portfolio construction and performance attribution.
Still, the trade-off is complexity and data-intensiveness. CAPM is simpler when you just need a ballpark cost of equity.
In a corporate finance or valuation role, you’ll see Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) used often. WACC combines the firm’s cost of debt and cost of equity (weighted by their proportions in the capital structure). The standard formula:
When a firm calculates WACC for project evaluation, the CAPM-based cost of equity is often the go-to. If you feel CAPM alone doesn’t cut it—maybe the company is micro-cap or in an emerging market—you plug in an expanded or multifactor-based \( R_e \) into the WACC formula.
If you’ve ever tried to analyze a frontier market telecommunication firm (maybe in sub-Saharan Africa or a war-torn region), the straightforward CAPM might produce suspiciously low discount rates. That’s where a country risk premium (CRP) or a political risk premium can be critical. But there’s no universal formula to get it perfect:
Add that country risk premium to your base CAPM calculation, and you can get a more realistic cost of equity for an emerging-market stock.
Beyond geographic considerations, smaller or less liquid stocks might see big price swings that go beyond their “beta to the market.” That’s why a size premium or a liquidity premium is often included in the discount rate. If the stock is rarely traded, you might require additional return to compensate for the difficulty of exiting your position quickly.
Below is a Mermaid diagram illustrating the logical progression from the basic CAPM to its expanded forms, including additional factors like size, value, and momentum.
graph LR
A["CAPM <br/> (Market Factor)"] -- Expand --> B["Expanded CAPM <br/> (+ Size, + Country Risk)"]
B -- Extend --> C["Fama-French <br/> Three-Factor Model"]
C -- AnotherFactor --> D["Carhart <br/> Four-Factor Model"]
In practice, you pick the model that best suits your market, data availability, and complexity appetite.
So, to sum it up—CAPM gives us a tidy framework that prices risk relative to the overall market. But because the real world is messy, we enhance or replace it with expanded CAPM or multifactor models when a single market factor doesn’t capture everything. If you’re pressed for time or data, CAPM might be enough, especially for developed market large-cap stocks. For smaller companies or those in volatile locales, an expanded approach offers a more nuanced picture of required returns.
Anyway, the more you work with these models, the more familiar and comfortable you’ll get. And trust me, the next time someone on your team says, “Uh, how did you arrive at that discount rate?” you’ll feel prepared to explain your premium add-ons and factor exposures. Good luck applying these models on your journey to mastering equity valuation.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.