Explaining anomalies in Australia with a five-factor asset pricing model

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper compares the ability of three-factor and five-factor asset pricing models to explain the apparent profitability of a broad selection of anomalies in Australian equity returns. Rather than examining the fit of each model to common test portfolios, our focus is on the spread return to long-short trading strategies designed around so-called anomalies. After documenting significant spread returns to 16 anomalies (including several not previously studied in Australia), the empirical analysis provides cautious support that the recently-proposed investment and profitability factors have a role to play. The number of anomalies that remains after risk adjustment decreases under the five-factor model. Further, while the magnitude of reduction in alpha is modest, our testing shows that it is statistically significant in many cases. However, both three-factor and five-factor models repeatedly fail the Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken's (1989) (GRS) test, suggesting that the quest for a better asset pricing model is not yet complete.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)123-135
Number of pages13
JournalInternational Review of Finance
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2018

Cite this

@article{55b3810bb7d54d5989165e4d17f83ec7,
title = "Explaining anomalies in Australia with a five-factor asset pricing model",
abstract = "This paper compares the ability of three-factor and five-factor asset pricing models to explain the apparent profitability of a broad selection of anomalies in Australian equity returns. Rather than examining the fit of each model to common test portfolios, our focus is on the spread return to long-short trading strategies designed around so-called anomalies. After documenting significant spread returns to 16 anomalies (including several not previously studied in Australia), the empirical analysis provides cautious support that the recently-proposed investment and profitability factors have a role to play. The number of anomalies that remains after risk adjustment decreases under the five-factor model. Further, while the magnitude of reduction in alpha is modest, our testing shows that it is statistically significant in many cases. However, both three-factor and five-factor models repeatedly fail the Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken's (1989) (GRS) test, suggesting that the quest for a better asset pricing model is not yet complete.",
author = "Huynh, {Thanh D.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/irfi.12125",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "123--135",
journal = "International Review of Finance",
issn = "1369-412X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Explaining anomalies in Australia with a five-factor asset pricing model. / Huynh, Thanh D.

In: International Review of Finance, Vol. 18, No. 1, 03.2018, p. 123-135.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Explaining anomalies in Australia with a five-factor asset pricing model

AU - Huynh, Thanh D.

PY - 2018/3

Y1 - 2018/3

N2 - This paper compares the ability of three-factor and five-factor asset pricing models to explain the apparent profitability of a broad selection of anomalies in Australian equity returns. Rather than examining the fit of each model to common test portfolios, our focus is on the spread return to long-short trading strategies designed around so-called anomalies. After documenting significant spread returns to 16 anomalies (including several not previously studied in Australia), the empirical analysis provides cautious support that the recently-proposed investment and profitability factors have a role to play. The number of anomalies that remains after risk adjustment decreases under the five-factor model. Further, while the magnitude of reduction in alpha is modest, our testing shows that it is statistically significant in many cases. However, both three-factor and five-factor models repeatedly fail the Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken's (1989) (GRS) test, suggesting that the quest for a better asset pricing model is not yet complete.

AB - This paper compares the ability of three-factor and five-factor asset pricing models to explain the apparent profitability of a broad selection of anomalies in Australian equity returns. Rather than examining the fit of each model to common test portfolios, our focus is on the spread return to long-short trading strategies designed around so-called anomalies. After documenting significant spread returns to 16 anomalies (including several not previously studied in Australia), the empirical analysis provides cautious support that the recently-proposed investment and profitability factors have a role to play. The number of anomalies that remains after risk adjustment decreases under the five-factor model. Further, while the magnitude of reduction in alpha is modest, our testing shows that it is statistically significant in many cases. However, both three-factor and five-factor models repeatedly fail the Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken's (1989) (GRS) test, suggesting that the quest for a better asset pricing model is not yet complete.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017527107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/irfi.12125

DO - 10.1111/irfi.12125

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 123

EP - 135

JO - International Review of Finance

JF - International Review of Finance

SN - 1369-412X

IS - 1

ER -