Publication: Drawbacks in the 3-factor approach of Fama and French
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2019
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico (ICAE)
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
This paper features a statistical analysis of the monthly three factor Fama/French return series. We apply rolling OLS regressions to explore the relationship between the 3 factors, using monthly and weekly data from July 1926 to June 2018, that are freely available on French's website. The results suggest there are significant and time-varying relationships between the factors. This is confirmed by non-parametric tests. We then switch to a sub-sample from July 1990 to July 2018, also taken from French's website. The three series and their interrelationships are analysed using two stage least squares and the Hausman test to check for issues related to endogeneity, the Sargan overidentification test and the Cragg-Donald weak instrument test. The relationship between factors is also examined using OLS, incorporating Ramsey's RESET tests of functional form misspecification,plus Naradaya-Watson kernel regression techniques. The empirical results suggest that the factors, when combined in OLS regression analysis, as suggested by Fama and French (2018), are likely to suffer from endogeneity. OLS regression analysis and the application of Ramsey's RESET tests suggest a non-linear relationship exists between the three series, in which cubed terms are significant. This non-linearity is also confirmed by the kernel regression analysis. We use two instruments to estimate the market betas, and then use the factor estimates in a second set of panel data tests using a small sample of monthly returns for US firms that are drawn from the online data source “tingo”. These issues are analysed using methods suggested by Petersen (2009) to permit clustering in the panels by date and firm. The empirical results suggest that using an instrument to capture endogeneity reducesthe standard error of market beta in subsequent crosssectional tests, but thatclustering effects, as suggested by Petersen (2009), will also impact on the estimated standard errors. The empirical results suggest that using these factorsin linear regression analysis, such as suggested by Fama and French (2018), as a method of screening factor relevance, is problematic in that the estimated standard errors are highly sensitive to the correct model specification.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Barillas, F., and J. Shanken, (2018) Comparing asset pricing models, Journal of Finance, 73(2), 715-754.
Cochrane, J.H. (2011) Presidential Address: Discount rates, Journal of Finance, 66(4), 1047-1108.
Cragg, J.G., and S.G. Donald (1993) Testing identi�ability and speci�cation in instrumental variable models, Econometric Theory, 9(2) 222-240.
Durbin, J. (1954) Errors in variables, Review of the International Statistical Institute, 22(1/3), 23�32.
Fama, E.F., and K.R. French (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3-56.
Fama, E.F., and K.R. French (2018) Choosing factors, Journal of Financial Economics, 128(2), 234-252.
Gibbons, M.R., S.A. Ross, and J. Shanken (1989) A test of the efficiency of a given portfolio, Econometrica, 57(5), 1121-1152.
Harvey, C.R., Y. Liu, and H. Zhu, (2015) . . . and the cross-section of expected returns, Review of Financial Studies, 29, 5-68.
Hausman, J.A. (1978) Speci�cation tests in econometrics, Econometrica, 46(6), 1251�1271.
Hay�eld, T. and J.S. Racine (2008) Nonparametric econometrics: the np package, Journal of Statistical Software, 27(5). URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i05/.
Maasoumi, E. and J.S. Racine (2002) Entropy and predictability of stock market returns, Journal of Econometrics, 107(2) 291�312.
Nadaraya, E.A. (1964) On estimating regression, Theory of Probability and its Applications, 9(1), 141�2.
Nakamura, A. and M. Nakamura (1981) On the relationships among several speci�cation error tests presented by Durbin, Wu, and Hausman, Econometrica, 49(6), 1583-1588.
Petersen, M. (2009) Estimating standard errors in �nance panel data sets: Comparing approaches, Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435-480.
Sargan, J.D. (1958) The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables, Econometrica, 26(3) 393�415.
Sargan, J.D. (1975) Testing for misspeci�cation after estimating using instrumental variables, Mimeo, London School of Economics.
Watson, G.S. (1964) Smooth regression analysis, Sankhy a: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, 26(4), 359�372.
Wu, D.M. (1973) Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances, Econometrica, 41(4), 733�750.