Table A.1:

Price of Risk Estimates: Estimation with Intercept.

Short Sample (1960−2014)Full Sample (1928−2014)
T = 55 and N = 31T =87 and N = 21
Reported Dec.Garbage Dec.P-J Dec.Q4-Q4 Dec.Unfiltered T.A.Reported Dec.Unfiltered T.A.
const7.401.244.570.941.279.56-0.30
t(const)sh3.140.281.190.210.363.72-0.08
Btrp c.i.95%(-0.1,11.8)(-6.5,13.0)(-2.2,11.7)(-4.7,11.5)(-3.4,9.1)(1.0,14.0)(-7.0, 6.3)
λ0.371.714.422.002.040.022.74
t(λ)sh0.701.051.831.811.750.042.10
Btrp c.i.95%(-1.1,1.7)(-2.1,4.2)(-1.3,5.2)(-0.6,2.3)(-0.4,3.1)(-2.9,2.6)(0.7,4.6)
GRS-FAR c.i.95%unboundedunboundedunboundedunboundedunbounded(-0.6, 1.2)(-0.1, 5.0)
implied γ21.4820.6942.5692.1630.060.3416.75
t(βALL), p-value0.230.300.090.100.050.300.00
F(βi = βj), p-value0.260.470.490.530.370.000.00

Description: This table complements Table 4 in the main paper and provides results for estimation with an intercept λ0.

Interpretation: When estimation is with an intercept, the Fama-MacBeth/Shanken as well es bootstrap confidence intervals do not indicate a significant price of risk at the 5% level for any of the alternative consumption measures. This result is in line with the lack of power of this specification, as indicated in Figure A.5.

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options