本研究比較Fama and French(1993)、Chen, Roll and Ross(1986)Sharpe(1964) and Lintner(1965)、Breeden(1979)等財務模型，何者較能解釋證券市場的報酬率。本研究使用美國證券市場為樣本，根據公司規模及帳面權益市值比將市場區分成25個投資組合，使用上述模型解釋這25個投資組合的報酬率，並且作聯合檢定，針對模型之間的關係，可區分為Nested和Non-Nested兩部分，Nested部分採用F檢定，Non-Nested部分採用Davidson and Mackinnon(1983)提出的P1檢定。由於25個投資組合的分類方式與FF三因子模型中的因子有關係,因此使用模型另外解釋12個產業投資組合。研究結果發現,解釋25個投資組合時,FF三因子模型為模型中最具有解釋能力的模型，而CCAPM為模型中最不具有解釋能力的模型,但解釋解釋產業投資組合時,只發現CCAPM為模型中最不具有解釋能力的模型。 Abstract This thesis compares various financial models, such as Fama and French (1993)、Chen, Roll and Ross (1986)、Sharpe (1964) and Lintner (1965)、Breeden (1979) to interpret which one can explain the result of return on stocks market well. The sample data of this thesis chosen from the US equity market and it divided into 25 portfolios by size of company and book-to-market ratio. This thesis use financial models to explain return on the stock and run joint test. According to the applied above relation between different models, we divided Nested from Non-Nested. We run F-test about Nested. Davidson and Mackinnon (1983) run P1-test about Non-Nested. Because 25 portfolios relates to the factor of the three-factor model, we have 12 industry portfolios. The above model explains 12 industry portfolios and 25 portfolios. When explain 25 portfolios, the three-factor model is the best among all. CCAPM model is the worst model yet lacks the power of explanation among all models. CCAPM model is the worst model of financial models in explaining 12 industry portfolios.
