0bps

Learn / Track II / lesson 3 of 4

Regression, beta and alpha

Splitting a strategy's return into what the market gave you for free and what you actually added.

10 min read

When a strategy makes money, the first question is whether it did anything clever or simply held the market in a rising year. Linear regression answers it.

The market model

Regress the strategy’s excess return on the market’s excess return:

rt−rf=α+β (rm,t−rf)+εtr_t - r_f = \alpha + \beta\,(r_{m,t} - r_f) + \varepsilon_t
  • β\beta measures exposure to the market. A beta of 1.2 means the strategy tends to move 1.2% for every 1% market move.
  • α\alpha is the average return left over after paying for that exposure. This is the part you can claim as skill.
  • εt\varepsilon_t is idiosyncratic noise, uncorrelated with the market by construction.

Ordinary least squares

OLS picks α\alpha and β\beta to minimise the sum of squared residuals. For a single regressor the solution is

β^=Cov⁡(r,rm)Var⁡(rm)=ρ σrσm,α^=rˉ−β^ rˉm\hat\beta = \frac{\operatorname{Cov}(r, r_m)}{\operatorname{Var}(r_m)} = \rho\,\frac{\sigma_r}{\sigma_m}, \qquad \hat\alpha = \bar r - \hat\beta\,\bar r_m

With many regressors in a matrix XX, it is β^=(X⊤X)−1X⊤y\hat\beta = (X^\top X)^{-1} X^\top y.

The standard error of β^\hat\beta shrinks with more data and more variation in the regressor. The t-statistic β^/SE⁡(β^)\hat\beta / \operatorname{SE}(\hat\beta) tests whether the coefficient differs from zero; values above about 2 are conventionally “significant”, though in strategy research you should demand much more.

R-squared

R2R^2 is the fraction of variance in yy explained by the regressors. For a market-neutral strategy you want low R2R^2 against the market. For a hedge you want high. It says nothing about whether the relationship is causal or stable.

Multi-factor models

Beyond the market, returns load on other systematic factors: size, value, momentum, quality, low volatility, and in crypto, BTC beta and funding-rate carry. Regressing on several factors at once,

rt=α+∑kβkfk,t+εtr_t = \alpha + \sum_k \beta_k f_{k,t} + \varepsilon_t

often shows that an apparently novel strategy is mostly a known factor in disguise. The residual alpha is usually much smaller than the raw return.

Worked example

A crypto strategy returns 40% in a year when BTC returns 60%. The regression gives β=0.8\beta = 0.8 and α≈0\alpha \approx 0. The strategy did not add value: it was a slightly de-levered BTC position. Holding 0.8 BTC per unit of capital would have done the same thing with no code.

Assumptions that bite in finance

  • Constant coefficients. Betas drift. Use rolling or exponentially weighted regressions to see how much.
  • Homoskedastic, uncorrelated errors. Financial residuals are neither. Use robust (Newey–West) standard errors for t-stats on overlapping or autocorrelated returns.
  • No look-ahead. Regressors must be known at the time of the trade. A factor built from end-of-month data cannot explain returns earned during that month.
Common mistake

Reporting alpha from a regression fitted on the same data used to design the strategy. The alpha is then partly a measure of how hard you searched. Fit on one period, evaluate on another.

esc

Try , , or .

↑↓ move↵ open