A long-short strategy consistently delivering significant alpha suggests that...[Fill in the blank]

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

A long-short (market‑neutral) strategy produces alpha by generating returns beyond those explained by common risk factors; if this alpha is persistently large and statistically significant, the most likely immediate interpretation is data-mining or overfitting — "we might have looked too much into the data!"

1) Relevant concepts:
- Long-short strategy: takes offsetting long and short positions to remove common market exposures.
- Alpha: the portion of returns unexplained by the chosen asset-pricing model (excess return).
- Data‑mining/overfitting: finding patterns that fit historical noise, not true out‑of‑sample relationships.
- Limits to arbitrage and market efficiency: if markets are efficient and arbitrage is effective, persistent exploitable alpha should not persist.

2) Step‑by‑step reasoning:
- A long‑short strategy aims to remove common factors; any remaining alpha is supposed to be genuine skill or omitted risk.
- Persistent significant alpha can arise for three main reasons: (i) genuine mispricing (true skill or omitted risk factor), (ii) structural market frictions preventing arbitrage, or (iii) data‑mining / backtest overfitting.
- Because many hypotheses and factors are typically tested, multiple comparisons inflate false positives: a strategy that looks great in-sample can fail out‑of‑sample.
- Practical checks (out‑of‑sample tests, cross‑validation, accounting for transaction costs, and correction for multiple testing) often show such “alpha” disappears, consistent with data‑snooping.

3) Why option c is correct:
- The phrasing “consistently delivering significant alpha” in a long‑short context frequently reflects selection bias and overfitting from extensive searching through historical data. This is the most immediate cautionary interpretation.

4) Why other options are incorrect:
- a (All) is wrong because not all listed reasons are equally likely.
- b (the model might be true) is backwards: if the model were true, alpha would be zero; a wrong model could explain some alpha but is less likely than overfitting given extensive testing.
- d (no limits to arbitrage) contradicts persistence—if no limits existed, arbitrage would remove alpha.
- e (market efficient) is inconsistent: efficiency implies no persistent alpha.

Conclusion: The best explanation is c — we might have looked too much into the data, confirming the provided answer.

A long-short strategy consistently delivering significant alpha suggests that...[Fill in the blank]单项选择题

类似问题

Asset pricing models...[Fill in the blank]

In an asset pricing model, betas (or factor loadings) reflect...[Fill in the blank]

Which statement best describes our current understanding of how to predict future stock returns?[Fill in the blank]

The index model for stock B has been estimated with the following result: RB,t = 0.01 + 1.1RM,t + eB,t. If σM = 0.20 and R2B= 0.50, the standard deviation of the return on stock B is

Question1.13 According to the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), in a disequilibrium, overpriced securities have ______ None of the options is correct. positive betas. zero alphas. negative betas. positive alphas. ResetMaximum marks: 2.5 Flag question undefined

A key limitation of using the log-utility CAPM as the basis for PME's risk adjustment is that:

Assume you have 30 years of quarterly PE cash flow data across various economic regimes, so that estimation is statistically precise. Vanilla PME still systematically mismeasures risk-adjusted performance. What does it get wrong?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单