ABSTRACT This paper challenges the view that the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) is inherently more susceptible to empirical verification than the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). The usual formulation of the testable implications of the APT is shown to be inadequate, as it precludes the very expected return differentials which the theory attempts to explain. A recent competitive‐equilibrium extension of the APT may be testable in principle. In order to implement such a test, however, observation of the return on the true market portfolio appears to be necessary.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 269 citations exist upstream.