Advertisement

Journal of Economics and Finance

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 162–179 | Cite as

Validating empirically identified risk factors

  • Glenn Pettengill
  • George ChangEmail author
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Fama and French (J Financ, 33, 3–56. 1992); Fama and French (J Financ, 47, 427–465. 1993) provide discipline altering studies which ended the dominance of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and supplanted it with the Fama and French three factor model. The CAPM identified the market factor as the only systematic risk factor; the three factor model added size and value as systematic risk factors. The latter study validated the size and value risk factors by showing a correlation between portfolio and factor time-series returns. This model has been widely accepted but has proved “open-ended” as researchers have mimicked this effort to identify a large number of additional factors. Harvey et al. (Rev Financ Stud, 29, 5–68. 2016) note that researchers have empirically identified 316 factors tested as systematic risk factors and argue that the discipline needs to identify the few relevant risk factors. Motivated by this seemingly futile effort to find the correct set of risk factors, we contribute by suggesting necessary conditions to validate empirically identified risk factors. We apply these conditions to the factors of the original Fama-French model. Based on our analysis we argue that neither the size nor value mimicking factors should be considered systematic risk factors.

Keywords

Capital Asset Pricing Model Beta Fama-French 3-Factor Model Systematic Risk Factors Risk-adjusted Returns 

JEL Classification

G11 G12 

References

  1. Banz W (1981) The relation between return and market value of common stocks. J Financ Econ 9:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu S (1983) The relationship between earnings yield, market value and return for NYSE common stocks: further evidence. J Financ Econ 12:129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell J, Hilscher J, Szilagyi J (2008) In search of distress risk. J Financ 63:2899–2939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carhart M (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J Financ 52:57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan KC, Lakonishok J (1993) Are the reports of beta’s death premature? J Portf Manag 19:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan KC, Lakonishok J (2004) Value and growth investing: review and update. Financial Analyst Journal January/February:71-86Google Scholar
  7. Cochrane J (2011) Presidential address: discount rates. J Financ 4:1047–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniel K, Titman S (1997) Evidence on the characteristics of cross sectional variation in stock returns. J Financ 52:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dichev I (1998) Is the risk of bankruptcy a systematic risk. J Financ 53:1131–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dijk M (2011) Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns. J Bank Financ 35:3263–3274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fama E, French K (1992) The cross section of expected stock returns. J Financ 47:427–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fama E, French K (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33:3–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fama E, French K (1995) Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns. J Financ 50:131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fama E, French K (2015) A five-factor asset pricing model. J Financ Econ 116:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fama E, MacBeth J (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: empirical tests. J Polit Econ 81:607–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferson W, Harvey C (1999) Conditioning variables and the cross section of stock returns. J Financ 54:1325–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvey C, Liu Y, Zhu H (2016). .. and the cross-section of expected returns. Rev Financ Stud 29 (1):5–68Google Scholar
  18. Hou K, Xue C, Zhang L (2015) Digesting anomalies: an investment approach. Rev Financ Stud 28(3):650–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hur J, Pettengill G, Singh V (2014) Market states and the risk-based explanation of the size premium. J Empir Financ 28:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakonishok J, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1994) Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. J Financ 49:1541–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loughran T (1997) Book-to-market across firm size, exchange, and seasonality: is there an effect? J Financ Quant Anal 32:249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pettengill G, Sundaram S, Mathur I (1995) The conditional correlation between beta and returns. J Financ Quant Anal 30:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pettengill G, Chang G, Hueng J (2014) Comparing value and growth mutual funds: new evidence. Working paper.Google Scholar
  24. Piotroski J (2000) Value investing: the use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. J Account Res 38:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinganum M (1981) Misspecification of capital asset pricing: empirical anomalies based on earnings’ yields and market values. J Financ Econ 9:19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roll R (1977) A critique of the asset pricing theory’s tests, Part I: On past and potential testability of the theory. J Financ Econ 4:129–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg B, Reid K, Lanstein R (1985) Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. J Portf Manag 11:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vassalou M, Xing Y (2004) Default risk in equity returns. J Financ 59:831–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodley M, Jones S, Reburn J (1985) Value stocks and accounting screens: has a good rule gone bad? Journal of Accounting and Finance 11:87–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance, Seidman College of BusinessGrand Valley State UniversityGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations