SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2020 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3

A Comparison of New Factor Models: Evidence From Turkey

Nesrin ÖZKAN
Pages
193–207
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Consequently, it seems as though the performanceof the model is sensitive to the way of factor construction and calculation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this paper to compare the performances of new factor models with the former models in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The performance metric is chosen as maximumsquared Sharpe ratio which gives a better understanding in comparison of two or more models accordance to Barillasand Shanken (2017).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, it seems as though the performanceof the model is sensitive to the way of factor construction and calculation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this paper to compare the performances of new factor models with the former models in Turkey. Inthat aim, newly proposed q-factor model and Fama-French five factor model are compared with Fama-French threefactor, Carhart four factor and Pástor-Stambaugh factor models. The performance metric is chosen as maximumsquared Sharpe ratio which gives a better understanding in comparison of two or more models accordance to Barillasand Shanken (2017). As per the measure of maximum squared Sharpe ratio, the q-factor model outperforms of allbetween July 2009 and June 2017. After that, Carhart four factor model follows as the second best performing model.It is considered that this result may be due to the portfolio formation frequency of profitability and momentum factors.Thus, it can be inferred that the higher the data frequency, the better the explanatory power of the model. AlthoughFama-French five factor model is similar to q-factor model, the considerable outperformance of q-factor model canbe attributed to the way of factor construction and calculation. Consequently, it seems as though the performanceof the model is sensitive to the way of factor construction and calculation.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, N. (2022). A Comparison of New Factor Models: Evidence From Turkey. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3, 193–207. https://ajindex.com/articles/495113

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Acaravci, S. K., & Karaomer, Y. (2017). Fama French five factor model: evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(6), 130-137.
  2. Aksu, M. H. & Onder, T. (2003). The size and book-tomarket effects and their role as risk proxies in the Istanbul stock Exchange. (Koc University, Graduate School of Business, Working Paper No. 2000-04). EFMA 2000
  3. Athens. Arıoğlu, E., & Canbaş, S. (2008). Testing the three factor model of Fama and French: Evidence from Turkey. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(3), 79-92.
  4. Atakan, T., & Gökbulut, R. İ. (2010). Üç faktörlü varlık fiyatlandırma nodelinin İstanbul menkul kıymetler borsası’nda uygulanabilirliğinin panel veri analizi ile test edilmesi. Muhasebe ve Finans Dergisi, 45, 180-189.
  5. Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series evidence, Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1), 31–56.
  6. Aras, G., Çam, I., Zavalsız, B., & Keskin, S. (2018). Fama-French çok faktör varlık fiyatlama modellerinin performanslarının karşılaştırılması: Borsa İstanbul üzerine bir uygulama. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, 47(2), 183-207.
  7. Barillas, F., & Shanken, J. (2017). Which alpha?. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(4), 1316-1338.
  8. Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57-82.
  9. Cooper, I., & Maio, P. (2019). New evidence on conditional factor models. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 54(5), 1975-2016.
  10. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1971). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. III. Biometrika, 58(1), 1-19.
  11. Erdinç, Y. (2017). Comparison of CAPM, three-factor Fama-French model and five-factor Fama-French model for the Turkish stock market. Financial Management from an Emerging Market Perspective, 69-92.
  12. Fabozzi, F. J., Huang, D., & Wang, J. (2016). What difference do new factor models make in portfolio allocation?. Available at SSRN 2752822. https://ssrn. com/abstract=2752822, (09.01.2018).
  13. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
  14. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
  15. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1995). Size and book to market factors in earnings and returns. The Journal of Finance, 50(1), 131-155.
  16. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1996). Multifactor explanations