An important but still partially unanswered question in the investment field is why different assets earn substantially different returns on average. Financial economists have typically addressed this question in the context of theoretically or empirically motivated asset pricing models. Since many of the proposed “risk” theories are plausible, a common practice in the literature is to take the models to the data and perform “horse races” among competing asset pricing specifications. A “good” asset pricing model should produce small pricing (expected return) errors on a set of test assets and should deliver reasonable estimates of the underlying market and economic risk premia. This chapter provides an up-to-date review of the statistical methods that are typically used to estimate, evaluate, and compare competing asset pricing models. The analysis also highlights several pitfalls in the current econometric practice and offers suggestions for improving empirical tests
