minor formatting
This commit is contained in:
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
|
||||
"source": [
|
||||
"## Benchmark Factors and Alpha\n",
|
||||
"\n",
|
||||
"A portfolio that returns 20% sounds great — but if the market also returned 18%, most of that performance is just the market: the portfolio went up because everything went up. To claim skill, we need to show returns *above and beyond* what standard risk factors explain.\n",
|
||||
"A portfolio that returns 20% sounds great — but if the market also returned 18%, most of that performance is just the market: the portfolio went up because everything went up. To claim skill, we need to show returns *above and beyond* what standard risk factors explain — that is, a component lying in the orthogonal complement of the factor span.\n",
|
||||
"\n",
|
||||
"### What are the Fama–French factors?\n",
|
||||
"\n",
|
||||
@@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@
|
||||
"source": [
|
||||
"## Walk-Forward Analysis\n",
|
||||
"\n",
|
||||
"A single full-sample Sharpe ratio doesn't quite tell us whether we have a robust strategy. Walk-forward analysis splits the sample into non-overlapping 5-year windows and computes performance metrics in each. A strategy that's positive in *every window* is far more convincing than one that earned all its returns in one lucky period.\n",
|
||||
"A single full-sample Sharpe ratio doesn't quite tell us whether we have a robust strategy. Walk-forward analysis splits the sample into non-overlapping 5-year windows and computes performance metrics in each. A strategy that's positive in *every window* is far more convincing than one that earned all its returns in one lucky period. Stability of the signal-to-noise ratio across sub-windows is evidence that the angle between $f_t$ and $r_{t+1}$ is a persistent feature of the data, not a single-period artifact.\n",
|
||||
"\n",
|
||||
"This is pure consistency checking; we're not optimizing any parameters or anything."
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user