Click to login and read the full article.
Don’t have access? Click here to request a demo
Alternatively, Call a member of the team to discuss membership options
US and Overseas: +1 646-931-9045
EMEA: +44 0207 139 1600
Abstract
The evidence for the existence of a distinct low-volatility effect is mounting. However, implicit exposures to the Fama–French value factor (HML) seem to explain the performance of straightforward U.S. low-volatility strategies since 1963. In this article, the author shows that the value effect fails to explain the performance of large-capitalization low-volatility strategies pre-1963 as well as post-1984, when the Fama–French value factor itself ceased to be effective in the large-cap segment of the market. Moreover, the performance of small-capitalization lowvolatility strategies cannot be explained by the value effect during any period. Fama–MacBeth regressions support the existence of a low-volatility effect for every subsample. Based on these results and various other arguments, the author concludes that there is a distinct low-volatility effect that cannot be explained by the value effect. The combined evidence even appears to be stronger for the low-volatility effect than for the value effect.
TOPICS: Factor-based models, volatility measures
- © 2016 Pageant Media Ltd
Don’t have access? Click here to request a demo
Alternatively, Call a member of the team to discuss membership options
US and Overseas: +1 646-931-9045
UK: 0207 139 1600