3
$\begingroup$

I am still relatively new to asset pricing factor models and have a few questions about my current empirical study. I would be very pleased if you could help me.

I have created a new factor which I now want to integrate into existing factor models. I want to see if the new factor makes a significant contribution to the explanation of returns and if its a "good" factor. Let us call the factor for simplification in the following $FKT$. I would now like to integrate this factor e.g. into the Fama French three-factor model:

$E(R_i) = \beta_i * E(RMRF) + s_i * E(SMB) + h_i * E(HML) + f * E(FKT)$

For this I first constructed 5x5 portfolios, sorted by size and the characteristic underlying the new factor. Then I performed time series regressions for the 25 portfolios, with the excess return of each portfolio $i$ as the dependent variable and the calculated factors as independent variables:

$R_{i} = \alpha_i + \beta_i * RMRF + s_i * SMB + h_i * HML + f * FKT + \epsilon_i $

If I have understood this correctly, then the $R_{adj.}^2$ of these time series regressions tells me whether the variance of the factors help to explain the variance of the returns over time. So if I compare the model without $FKT$ with the model including $FKT$, then I know that the new factor helps to explain the variance of the returns if $R_{adj.}^2$ is higher, right? But it does not tell me yet whether the new factor also helps to explain expected returns, right? For this I still have to do cross sectional regressions (?) according to Fama French (1993) with the calculated coefficients as independent variable and the averaged return over time as the dependent variable:

$R_{i} = \alpha_i + \beta_i * \lambda_{RMRF}+ s_i * \lambda_{SMB} + h_i * \lambda_{HML} + f_i * \lambda_{FKT}$

The more significant $\alpha = 0$ (F statistics) here, the better the model, right? The Lambdas are the risk premia of the factors, right?

At this point I don't really get any further, as I am unsure about which "cross section" is being talked about here. Since I have created 25 portfolios, I can only have all in all 25 values in the cross section, right? Isn't that far too little for a sufficient regression? Or do I have to run new time series regressions for each company in the portfolios individually so that I have enough values for the final cross sectional regression (for each portfolio)?

Finally, I would be interested in how far Fama MacBeth (1973) regressions would provide additional information. What statement can I make from the results of Fama MacBeth regressions that I cannot make from the Fama French cross sectional approach?

I hope you understand my questions and can help me out, I would be very happy!

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

You say:

At this point I don't really get any further, as I am unsure about which "cross section" is being talked about here. Since I have created 25 portfolios, I can only have all in all 25 values in the cross section, right? Isn't that far too little for a sufficient regression? Or do I have to run new time series regressions for each company in the portfolios individually so that I have enough values for the final cross sectional regression (for each portfolio)?

This correct. You only have 25 portfolios. That's enough for a single cross-section, YES!

A better way is to run the first stage as a rolling regression. Then you have multiple cross-sectional regressions (each with 25 observations) and then you do the following:

For each month $t$, you run a cross-section regression:

$r_{i,t} = \lambda_0 + \hat{\beta}_i {\lambda}_t + \alpha_{i,t}$

Where: $\hat{\beta}_i \equiv [\beta_{i, MktRf}, \beta_{i, SMB}, \beta_{i, HML}]'$, is a vector of the coefficients estimated on the first step.

What you are looking for is to estimate the vector of $\hat{\lambda}_t \equiv [\lambda_{t, MktRf}, \lambda_{y, SMB}, \lambda_{t, HML}]$.

So after the second step you will have $T$ estimates for each $\lambda$ (price of risk).

Then you just need to average those $\lambda$'s:

$\hat{\lambda} = \frac{1}{T} \sum^{T}_{t=1} \hat{\lambda}_t$

And you can test their statistical significance using as a variance estimate the following:

$Est.Asy.Var(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{1}{T^2} \sum^{T}_{t=1} (\hat{\lambda}_t - \hat{\lambda} )(\hat{\lambda}_t - \hat{\lambda} )'$

Edit: Take a look at Fama and French (1992) the quote below is taken from their paper:

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your response! Isn't that approach you mention "just" the on from Fama MacBeth? $\endgroup$ – YemenBlues Jun 23 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fama French cross sectional regressions use Fama McBeth Method! Gonna edit the above to clarify. $\endgroup$ – phdstudent Jun 23 at 15:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.