Skip to content
All library documents

Interpreting Fama–MacBeth Regression Signs for Stock Returns

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Priya
Read the original

Summary

The document describes a Fama–MacBeth cross-sectional regression of stock excess returns on idiosyncratic volatility, log market capitalization, book-to-market, and beta. The researcher reports statistically significant coefficients and says the idiosyncratic-volatility coefficient has the expected positive sign, while the other signs differ from expectations. They ask whether the results are valid and how to explain them.

No regression output, sample description, period, variable definitions, or response is supplied, so the document does not establish whether the estimates are correct or offer an interpretation. Significance alone cannot determine whether a specification is sound or whether signs should match a prior expectation. Any assessment would depend on measurement choices, sample construction, controls, and the estimation procedure. The material is therefore a research question about interpreting empirical factor results, rather than evidence for a particular return relationship.

Key ideas

  • The regression relates stock excess returns to volatility, firm size, book-to-market, and beta.
  • The researcher reports significant coefficients but unexpected signs for size, book-to-market, and beta.
  • The document includes no results table or details needed to assess the specification.
  • Statistical significance by itself does not validate estimates or their interpretation.

Tags

EquitiesFactor investingStatistics
Full text
# Results of Fama MacBeth regression


# Results of Fama MacBeth regression












I have run Fama MacBeth cross section regression of of Excess Return of stocks on Idiosyncratic volatility, the log of market capitalization, book to equity ratio and Beta. I'm getting all significant results. My idiosyncratic volatility is positive which is correct but i am not getting the desired sign of log market capitalization (Positive sign), BM ratio (negative) and Beta (negative). my question is that how to explain these results? Is my results are correct or can i explain them some another way?

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.