A Comparative Study between the Fama and French Three-Factor Model and the Fama and French Five-Factor Model: Evidence from the Egyptian Stock Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this paper is to test whether the Fama and French three-factor and five factor models can capture the variations of returns in the Egyptian stock market as one of the growing emerging markets over the time-period July 2005 to June 2016. To achieve this aim, following Fama and French (2015), the authors construct the Fama and French factors and three sets of test portfolios which are: 10 portfolios double-sorted on size and the BE/ME ratio, 10 portfolios double-sorted on size and operating profitability, and 10 portfolios double-sorted on size and investment for the Egyptian stock market. Using time-series regressions and the GRS test, the results show that although both models cannot be rejected as valid asset pricing models when applied to portfolios double-sorted on size and the BE/ME ratio, they still leave substantial variations in returns unexplained given their low adjusted R2 values. Similarly, when the two models are applied to portfolios double-sorted on size and investment, the results of the GRS test show that both models cannot be rejected. However, when the two models are applied to portfolios double-sorted on size and operating profitability, the results of the GRS test show that both models are strongly rejected which imply that both models leave substantial variations in returns related to size and profitability unexplained. Specifically, the biggest challenge to the two models is the big portfolio with weak profitability which generate a significantly negative intercept implying that the models overestimate its return.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".