The<i>q</i>-factor and the Fama and French asset pricing models: hedge fund evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the new Fama and French (2015) five-factor model relying on a thorough sample of hedge fund strategies drawn from the Barclay’s Global hedge fund database. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a stepwise regression to identify the factors of theq-factor model which are relevant for the hedge fund strategy analysis. Doing so, the authors account for the Fung and Hsieh seven factors which prove very useful in the explanation of the hedge fund strategies. The authors introduce interaction terms to depict any interaction of the traditional Fama and French factors with the factors associated with theq-factor model. The authors also examine the dynamic dimensions of the risk-taking behavior of hedge funds using a BEKK procedure and the Kalman filter algorithm. Findings The results show that hedge funds seem to prefer stocks of firms with a high investment-to-assets ratio (low conservative minus aggressive (CMA)), on the one hand, and weak firms’ stocks (low robust minus weak (RMW)), on the other hand. This combination is not associated with the conventional properties of growth stocks – i.e., low high minus low (HML) stocks – which are related to firms which invest more (low CMA) and which are more profitable (high RMW). Finally, small minus big (SMB) interacts more with RMW while HML is more correlated with CMA. The conditional correlations between SMB and CMA, on the one hand, and HML and RMW, on the other hand, are less tight and may change sign over time. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the authors are the first to cast the new Fama and French five-factor model in a hedge fund setting which account for the Fung and Hsieh option-like trading strategies. This approach allows the authors to better understand hedge fund strategies becauseq-factors are useful to study the dynamic behavior of hedge funds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".