How Fama–French Factors Relate to Risk and Alpha
Summary
The note examines why the Fama–French model is often described as a risk model and how that differs from an alpha model. It presents a factor-pricing view in which expected excess returns are related to assets’ factor exposures and the premia associated with those factors. In this interpretation, size and book-to-market factors proxy for underlying economic risks that may not be captured by the CAPM.
The discussion cites financial distress and sensitivity to business conditions as possible economic explanations for the observed factor patterns. It also gives a contrasting view: the model can be treated as a statistical description of co-movement among portfolios, with alpha represented by the regression intercept left unexplained by the factors. The exchange shows that the label depends partly on interpretation; it does not settle whether the factors are true economic risks or merely empirical proxies, and it provides no new empirical test.
Key ideas
- A factor model can express expected excess returns through factor exposures and factor risk premia.
- The Fama–French factors are interpreted by some as proxies for latent economic risks.
- Size and book-to-market patterns have been linked to financial distress and sensitivity to business conditions.
- An alternative view treats the factors as statistical descriptors of portfolio co-movement.
- In a regression framework, alpha is the intercept not explained by the included factors.
Tags
Full text
# Why is Fama French model a risk model # Why is Fama French model a risk model I get this question from interviewer about what is alpha model, what is risk model and why is Fama-French a risk model. As my understanding, alpha model forecast expected return, so the factor could be stock specific. And risk model forecast stock correlation, and the factors in risk model need to be a risk index and can't be stock specific. But why Fama-French a risk model? It is a model for expected return, you could argue that it could model correlation. But it gives information that small out perform big and high value out perform low. In general, what makes a factor risk and what makes a factor alpha? ## Answer by skoestlmeier (score 3) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/41706 I feel in need for adding a differnt answer than the previous one. Cochrane states in the preface of his book Asset Pricing: > In absolute pricing, we price each asset by reference to its exposure to fundamental sources of macroeconomic risk. [...]. The absolute approach is most common in academic settings, in which we use asset pricing theory positively to give an economic explanation for why prices are what they are, or in order to predict how prices might change if policy or economic structure changed. Factor models like Fama-French can be expressed in terms of $$E[R^e] = \beta' \lambda$$ where $\beta$ are the multiple regression coefficients of excess returns $R^e$ on the factors and $\lambda$ represents the factor risk premia. The intuition underlying the Fama-French model is to capture risks, which were empirically found in academic research (while testing the CAPM) to influence asset returns. See this answer adressing the Fama-French factors: > The reason pointed out by FF that firms with high ratios of book-to-market value are more likely to be in financial distress and small stocks may be more sensitive to changes in business conditions and thus provide higher historical-average return than predicted by CAPM In fact, it is less a statistical model and rather a risk model based on economic observations and relations. To be very precise, one has to say that the Fama-French risk-factors serve as a proxy for the exposure towards latent risk factors, which are not captured by the CAPM. Empirical findings give strong evidence, that the latent risk factors are cross-sectionally highly correlated with firm size (and respectively book-to-market ratio). Relating to Cochrane's quote, the Fama-French model is an absolute pricing model, which corrects asset returns for risk. Therefore, it is a valid risk-model. References: Cochrane (2005), Asset Pricing, rev. ed., Princeton University Press. ## Answer by jd8 (score 1) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/41704 It's not a risk model. It's a statistical model. The Fama-French 3 factor model describes correlation in the 25 size and book-to-market portfolios by using "factors" which are constructed using long-short portfolios on size and book to market. If you take a principal components of the size book-to-market portfolios you will get something that looks similar. They call it a risk model, but there is no theory. The alpha, then, is an intercept of a regression model which picks up average returns not explained by the variation in size and book to market factors.
Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.