Factor investing (optional)
Chapters
Chapters

How much evidence a factor needs

Ask what could explain the result, how it was selected and what survives implementation, without making unresolved research uncertainty disappear.

Why might the pattern survive informed investors?

What might reward the extra risks and costs: painful risk, persistent behaviour or investor constraints? A plausible account proves neither the cause nor a future premium.

Could those painful conditions also threaten your income or spending? Another investor’s capacity is not yours.

Competing accounts of the same history

Overreaction, overpayment or constraints on holding an exposure might persist despite informed competition. Andrew Ang discusses these alongside risk; several accounts—and data searching—can fit one history.

A published flag may hide twenty tests.

Lupa lifts an owl-like inkblot beside two different abstract prints.
Fictional experiment: 20 independent tests, no real effects, each with a known 5% false-flag probability.

If a flag occurs: select one for publication.
If none occurs: there is no flag to select.

Chance of at least one false flag

One test: 5%
Twenty tests: 64.2%
0%100% of repeated experiments

About 64.2% produce a flag; 35.8% produce none. Expected count: 1 flag per experiment, not one guaranteed flag.

This is not the probability that an actual factor is false. A 5% threshold does not mean a claim has a 95% chance of being true. Real tests have different error properties; weak evidence does not establish absence.

False flags, expected counts and missed discoveries

No flags: 0.95²⁰ ≈ 35.8%; at least one: 1 − 0.95²⁰ ≈ 64.2%. Expected count: 20 × 5% = 1. None identifies an individual false result.

Changing dates, definitions or companies can hide searches. Harvey/Liu study false and missed discoveries: genuine effects can go undetected. Real tests may be highly correlated.

The information must exist before the decision.

Two timing checks in an invented study
  1. 31 December 2019Company accounts close.
  2. 20 March 2020Accounts become public.
  3. 1 April 2020April’s portfolio can use these accounts; January’s could not.
  1. End of 2022Researcher fixes and publishes the rule after studying 2010–2022.
  2. 2023–2025Later data test that unchanged rule.

Retuning on 2023–2025 uses up that test: the revised rule needs fresh evidence.

Later revisions and a survivor list learned afterwards also introduce unavailable knowledge. Separate original-sample, other-period or market, post-publication and live-fund results.

Different providers can reuse history, methods and conditions. Several charts are not necessarily separate tests.

Inspect samples and later evidence separately

Check selection in the original sample, comparability across settings, and changed conditions and record length after publication. Live funds additionally reveal mandate, expenses, exposure and benchmark.

McLean and Pontiff distinguish weaker later and post-publication returns from original-sample results: reason to inspect, not a universal discount or fund forecast.

What could an investor actually keep?

Identify long-only, long–short or exposure-adjusted results. Fund securities, financing and tilt can differ. Include expenses, transactions and applicable tax; check index launch date, back-calculated history, currency and income treatment.

Illiquid or expensive securities can weaken implementation. Trading/concentration limits may reasonably produce a milder tilt, changing what is being tested. The SEC’s investor bulletin distinguishes hypothetical from actual performance.

Record what remains uncertain.

Record the definition, evidence, household risks and added exposure; research disagreements may persist.

A precise premium or promised recovery date remains an unsupported planning dependency. Apply the burden and simplification decision; choosing less complexity need not prove factors can never work.

Check your understanding

Try each question, then check your answer.

Choose questions from another chapter

01

Selecting a test result

A researcher tests many factor definitions and publishes only the most impressive historical result. What information is especially useful?

  • A more detailed chart of the winning definition using the same observations.
  • A second provider’s chart built from the same winning rule and historical database.
  • The number of unsuccessful tests and independent evidence not used to select the winner.
Show the explanation

Correct answer: The number of unsuccessful tests and independent evidence not used to select the winner.

Searching many alternatives creates more opportunities to find a strong result by chance. The search history and genuinely separate tests help assess that risk. A statistical result also needs an economic explanation and implementable costs; it is not a return promise.

Return to the explanation

02

Historical accounts

A historical factor strategy uses annual accounts to form a portfolio before those accounts were publicly released. What is the problem?

  • The simulated decision uses information unavailable at the time.
  • There is no problem if the financial year had already ended.
  • There is no timing problem if the figures were later audited and not restated.
Show the explanation

Correct answer: The simulated decision uses information unavailable at the time.

The end of an accounting period, a later audit and the public release date are different. Historical decisions can use only information available then; accurate later figures do not repair an invalid timeline. Account for publication lags rather than letting later knowledge select earlier holdings.

Return to the explanation

Reading list

Before you continue

I have read About, Terms & disclaimer and Privacy & storage. I agree to the terms and acknowledge the privacy notice.

If you do not agree, please leave the site.