• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Single Index Model - Least Squares Regression

D

Delvesy888

Member
Hi all,

I am slightly confused with a section of the ActEd notes, in chapter 6, on page 10, that has stumped me for some time now.

I am referring to the derivation of the Beta_i (hat) and Alpha_i (hat) coefficients of the single-index model.

From CT3, one would expect the formula for alpha_i (hat), to be:

alpha_i (hat) = E[R_i] - Beta_i (hat) * E[R_M]

However, in this case, for some reason we have

alpha_i (hat) = E[E_it] - Beta_i (hat) * E[E_Mt]

where E_it = E[R_it], etc.

I really do not understand how we get to this expression?

I guess it is a question of why the expected return on security i is equal to the average of all the expected returns of the security i at each time t.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,

Sorry for the confusion. What you've highlighted is indeed an error, which appears to have been sitting unnoticed in the Course Notes for many years.

As you correctly suggest, the equation for estimating beta is correct, whilst the equation for estimating alpha should be:

alpha_i (hat) = E[R_i] - Beta_i (hat) * E[R_M]

ie we should taking means of the actual security returns and market returns, and we should not be taking means of means.

Apologies for this error, which I'll get corrected in the Course Notes, and thanks for drawing this to our attention.

Graham :)
 
Graham,

Thanks very much for the reply, much appreciated.

However, I still don't agree that beta_i is correct in the course notes either, or perhaps it is just a notation issue.

Essentially, in the formula for beta_i in the course notes, I think what is written as E_it should be the average of R_it over all times, and hence have no dependence on t (again, including E_it in the expression for beta_i, that sums over t, is taking an average of an average).

Please let me know if you disagree with this.

Thanks again.
 
Hi again,

Yes you're right. "E" is the mean of the "Rt" and as such doesn't depend on t. So, it should just be Ei and EM in the beta formula.

I'm currently updating the Course Notes for the next session and will be amending the beta equation by replacing the "E"'s by "R bars" (for the mean of R), which should include t subscripts.

I'll also add the corrected equations for alpha and beta in the CT8 Corrections document on the ActEd website.

Thanks for taking the time to highlight this.

Graham :)
 
Sorry, but in my post just now I missed out a "not". The middle sentence should say:

I'm currently updating the Course Notes for the next session and will be amending the beta equation by replacing the "E"'s by "R bars" (for the mean of R), which should not include t subscripts.

Anyway, I've attached the amended page showing what the equations should look like.

Graham
 

Attachments

  • CT8 Chapter 6 _page10_ 2016.pdf
    161.6 KB · Views: 31
Thanks Graham, much appreciated.
The attached agrees exactly with what I had written in 'my' version of the notes.
Best,
Luke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top