Why is CAPM used to estimate Cost of Equity when Beta only measures systematic risk?

Am I overlooking something? If Beta measures only systematic risk (therefore assuming that all firm-specific risk can be diversified away), then why is the CAPM model used to estimate cost of equity? Isn't it a little misleading because some firms with very high firm-specific risk have very low systematic risk?

I'm thinking about biotech stocks vs construction stocks. Biotech stocks have very high firm-specific risk because the product might never be released to the public, but relatively little systematic risk because people need medicine in any business cycle. Construction companies on the other hand have very little firm specific risk, but high systematic risk since they will do poorly if the economy is not doing well. If you use Beta as a measure of risk, though, then the construction company will have a higher Beta than the biotech company due to higher systematic risk even though the biotech company is clearly a "riskier" investment. Why use CAPM used in estimating cost of equity? What am I missing?

 

Beta isn't perfect and it is a misleading measure of risk, which is one of the explanations for why the factor anomaly called "Betting against Beta" exists. It's still used though because it's theoretically correct. If every investor were completely diversified, Beta would be the measure of risk to use (assuming you could properly calculate it). Since no one is that diversified, then beta has its flaws.

The main point about beta you seem to be missing or not appreciating, is the fact that beta assumes investors are completely diversified.

 

The beta calculation is a measure of covariability between market returns and the returns of a single stock. A short step away from the beta calculation is the calculation for the coefficient of determination between the two, or R^2. R^2 tells you what percent of variability in the stock is due to variability in the market. Variability in the market minus the risk free rate (the market risk premium) is THE measure of systemic risk, so beta tells you how much systemic risk is in any one stock's historical returns.

Firm-specific risk can be harder to quantify, because it can include acts of god, CEO plane crash or drug use, shady accounting, etc. You can't just say, "R^2 = 55% of the variability in this stock is systemic risk, so 45% is firm-specific risk."

 

The CAPM assumes that investors are sufficiently diversified such that the unsystematic risk (firm-specific risk) becomes negligible as diversification will help "cancel out" the randomness from unsystematic risk. E.g. if you hold a portfolio of 30 assets, then the firm-specific factors for each company will sometime be positive, sometimes negative - due to the number of stocks held, such "random" variation should be cancelled out (same idea as for "random error" in statistics).

It of course relies heavily on that people are sufficiently diversified etc. etc. etc.

 

Investors differ in their willingness to accept risk for a greater return. But if investors are willing to invest in the stock market, then they are willing to assume some risk. The capital asset pricing model provides is a consistent means to price risk premiums. If you are willing to accept higher risks to get higher returns, then it makes sense to demand a higher return for a higher risk; otherwise, why take the higher risk. By comparing the beta of a stock and its historical return with that of the general market, you can determine whether the return of a stock is worth its risk.

David Wilson Criminal Defense Lawyer Indio Personal Injury Lawyer Indio http://cabreralawoffices.com/
 
david wilson123:

Investors differ in their willingness to accept risk for a greater return. But if investors are willing to invest in the stock market, then they are willing to assume some risk. The capital asset pricing model provides is a consistent means to price risk premiums. If you are willing to accept higher risks to get higher returns, then it makes sense to demand a higher return for a higher risk; otherwise, why take the higher risk. By comparing the beta of a stock and its historical return with that of the general market, you can determine whether the return of a stock is worth its risk.

Yes, if you think volatility = risk

 

Nam tempore minima illum corrupti enim. Atque quo illo tempore rem suscipit cupiditate aspernatur eum. Labore doloribus occaecati possimus alias amet aperiam et. Et illum omnis est. Natus quidem sed atque voluptas aut.

"There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat."

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”