Imagine you are building a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model for a prominent Indian infrastructure firm as part of your NISM-XV examination prep or daily research routine. You dutifully apply the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate the cost of equity, using the current risk-free rate, a historical equity risk premium, and the stock’s calculated beta.
However, you notice that the resulting discount rate seems suspiciously low, making the stock appear deeply undervalued despite significant geopolitical risks and domestic regulatory hurdles that aren’t captured by the beta alone. This gap highlights the fundamental friction between the elegant, theoretical world of CAPM and the messy, unpredictable reality of the Indian capital markets.
The CAPM relies on several restrictive assumptions, most notably that investors can borrow and lend at the same risk-free rate and that markets are perfectly efficient. In the Indian context, retail investors face significant transaction costs and tax frictions that violate the model’s ‘frictionless market’ requirement. Furthermore, CAPM assumes that beta is a sufficient measure of risk, ignoring unsystematic factors like management quality, sudden policy shifts, or liquidity constraints that often dominate the price action of mid-cap and small-cap stocks.
When you use CAPM, you are essentially betting that past volatility is a reliable proxy for future risk, which is rarely true during periods of macroeconomic structural change.
Consider a case where an Indian consumer durable company experiences a sudden supply chain disruption or a localized credit squeeze. The CAPM would typically look at the stock’s historical price correlation with the Nifty 50 to derive a beta, potentially suggesting the asset is low-risk. Yet, the firm’s actual fundamental risk—its inability to pass on input costs to price-sensitive rural consumers—is completely absent from the beta calculation.
If you rely solely on CAPM-derived hurdle rates, you risk underestimating the cost of capital, which leads to overly optimistic valuations and potentially disastrous investment recommendations.
To navigate these limitations, professional analysts often incorporate ‘size premiums’ or ’liquidity premiums’ into their cost of equity calculations, effectively adjusting the CAPM output to account for missing risk factors. A disciplined researcher recognizes that while CAPM provides a necessary baseline, it is merely a starting point rather than a complete valuation tool. Always triangulate your DCF output against relative valuation multiples and qualitative stress tests to ensure your final recommendation isn’t a victim of model myopia.
Nuance
Check Your Understanding
An analyst is valuing a small-cap stock using a DCF model. They find that the CAPM-derived cost of equity is significantly lower than the actual required return demanded by market participants. Which of the following is the most likely reason for this discrepancy?
Which assumption of the CAPM is most frequently violated in the Indian equity markets when performing valuation analysis?
This is a companion read for Section 12.9 — Calculating risk adjusted returns: from PASS Research Analyst Certification Examination by Akhilesh Gururani, available on Amazon Kindle.
Copyright © 2026 Akhilesh Gururani. All rights reserved.