Empirical Asset Pricing Models for Green, Grey, and Red EU Securities: A Fama–French and Carhart Model Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the explainability, validity, and applicability of multi-factor models in explaining the returns of Green (eco-friendly), Grey (neutral), and Red (environmentally harmful) EU securities. We apply the Fama–French three-factor and five-factor models, along with the Carhart four-factor model, to analyze changes in risk exposures and adjusted abnormal returns (alphas) before and after the 2009 global financial crisis (GFC). Green and Grey securities exhibit positive SMB loadings, while Grey’s HML shifts from negative to positive over time. Both Green and Red securities show positive SMB and HML factors but negative alphas in the second period, indicating systematic underperformance. Additionally, for Red assets, momentum (MOM), profitability (RMW), and investment (CMA) factors are positive and significant in the first period but become insignificant or negative later. These findings highlight structural shifts in factor exposures and contribute to the ongoing debate on the most suitable classical asset pricing framework for environmentally classified assets, offering insights into the effectiveness of traditional factor models in different classes of environmental assets in finance. Lastly, the three-factor model better captures the common variation in Green and Grey asset returns. Specifically, the 4-factor model and the HML Devil factor prove to be more effective in explaining returns for Red securities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".