Hubbry Logo
Alpha (finance)Alpha (finance)Main
Open search
Alpha (finance)
Community hub
Alpha (finance)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Alpha (finance)
Alpha (finance)
Alpha (finance)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Alpha is a measure of the active return on an investment, the performance of that investment compared with a suitable market index. An alpha of 1% means the investment's return on investment over a selected period of time was 1% better than the market during that same period; a negative alpha means the investment underperformed the market.

Alpha, along with beta, is one of two key coefficients in the capital asset pricing model used in modern portfolio theory and is closely related to other important quantities such as standard deviation, R-squared and the Sharpe ratio.[1]

In modern financial markets, where index funds are widely available for purchase, alpha is commonly used to judge the performance of mutual funds and similar investments. As these funds include various fees normally expressed in percent terms, the fund has to maintain an alpha greater than its fees in order to provide positive gains compared with an index fund. Historically, the vast majority of traditional funds have had negative alphas, which has led to a flight of capital to index funds and non-traditional hedge funds.

It is also possible to analyze a portfolio of investments and calculate a theoretical performance, most commonly using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Returns on that portfolio can be compared with the theoretical returns, in which case the measure is known as Jensen's alpha. This is useful for non-traditional or highly focused funds, where a single stock index might not be representative of the investment's holdings.

Definition in capital asset pricing model

[edit]

The alpha coefficient () is a parameter in the single-index model (SIM). It is the intercept of the security characteristic line (SCL), that is, the coefficient of the constant in a market model regression.

where the following inputs are:

  • : the realized return (on the portfolio),
  • : the market return,
  • : the risk-free rate of return, and
  • : the beta of the portfolio.
  • εi,t : the non-systematic or diversifiable, non-market or idiosyncratic risk

It can be shown that in an efficient market, the expected value of the alpha coefficient is zero. Therefore, the alpha coefficient indicates how an investment has performed after accounting for the risk it involved:

  • : the investment has earned too little for its risk (or, was too risky for the return)
  • : the investment has earned a return adequate for the risk taken
  • : the investment has a return in excess of the reward for the assumed risk

For instance, although a return of 20% may appear good, the investment can still have a negative alpha if it's involved in an excessively risky position.

In this context, because returns are being compared with the theoretical return of CAPM and not to a market index, it would be more accurate to use the term of Jensen's alpha.

Origin of the concept

[edit]

Efficient market hypothesis (EMH) states that share prices reflect all information, therefore stocks always trade at their fair value on exchanges. This would mean consistent alpha generation (i.e. better performance than the market) is impossible, and proponents of EMH posit that investors would benefit from investing in a low-cost, passive portfolio.[2]

A belief in EMH spawned the creation of market capitalization weighted index funds, which seek to replicate the performance of investing in an entire market in the weights that each of the equity securities comprises in the overall market.[3][4] The best examples for the US are the S&P 500 and the Wilshire 5000 which approximately represent the 500 most widely held equities and the largest 5000 securities respectively, accounting for approximately 80%+ and 99%+ of the total market capitalization of the US market as a whole.

In fact, to many investors,[citation needed] this phenomenon created a new standard of performance that must be matched: an investment manager should not only avoid losing money for the client and should make a certain amount of money, but in fact should make more money than the passive strategy of investing in everything equally (since this strategy appeared to be statistically more likely to be successful than the strategy of any one investment manager). The name for the additional return above the expected return of the beta adjusted return of the market is called "Alpha".

Relation to beta

[edit]
Main article: Beta (finance)

Besides an investment manager simply making more money than a passive strategy, there is another issue: although the strategy of investing in every stock appeared to perform better than 75 percent of investment managers (see index fund), the price of the stock market as a whole fluctuates up and down, and could be on a downward decline for many years before returning to its previous price.

The passive strategy appeared to generate the market-beating return over periods of 10 years or more. This strategy may be risky for those who feel they might need to withdraw their money before a 10-year holding period, for example. Thus investment managers who employ a strategy that is less likely to lose money in a particular year are often chosen by those investors who feel that they might need to withdraw their money sooner.

Investors can use both alpha and beta to judge a manager's performance. If the manager has had a high alpha, but also a high beta, investors might not find that acceptable, because of the chance they might have to withdraw their money when the investment is doing poorly.

These concepts not only apply to investment managers, but to any kind of investment.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Alpha (finance)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In finance, alpha (α), also known as Jensen's alpha, is a risk-adjusted performance measure that quantifies the excess return of a portfolio or security over the return predicted by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), reflecting the investment manager's skill in generating returns beyond market exposure. Developed by economist Michael C. Jensen in 1968 through his analysis of mutual fund performance from 1945 to 1964, alpha isolates the portion of returns attributable to active management decisions rather than systematic market risk. Alpha is calculated using the α = R_p - [R_f + β_p (R_m - R_f)], where R_p represents the portfolio's actual return, R_f the , β_p the portfolio's beta (measuring sensitivity to market movements), and R_m the benchmark market return. This computation is typically derived from regressing the portfolio's excess returns against the market's excess returns, yielding alpha as the intercept. A positive value indicates superior performance on a risk-adjusted basis, suggesting the manager has added value through stock selection or timing; a negative value signals underperformance relative to the benchmark. Widely applied in portfolio evaluation, alpha helps investors distinguish between returns driven by market beta and those from managerial alpha, guiding decisions on active versus passive strategies. In practice, it is essential for assessing mutual funds, funds, and other vehicles, though its effectiveness hinges on selecting an appropriate benchmark and accurate beta estimation, as deviations can arise from non-normal return distributions or model assumptions.

Core Concepts

Definition

In finance, alpha is a measure of an investment's performance, representing the excess return achieved relative to a benchmark index, adjusted for the level of undertaken. This metric isolates the portion of return attributable to or security selection rather than broad market movements. A positive alpha indicates outperformance, suggesting that the investment has generated returns above those expected given its exposure, often reflecting managerial in or timing. Conversely, a negative alpha signals underperformance, implying returns below the benchmark after adjustment. Unlike total return, which captures the overall gain or loss from an including market effects, alpha specifically highlights the incremental value created by decisions that deviate from passive benchmark replication. For example, if a portfolio returns 12% while its benchmark yields 10% under equivalent conditions, the alpha is 2%, demonstrating from active strategies. This concept is frequently framed within the to ensure risk-adjusted comparability.

Mathematical Formulation

In the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), the expected return on an asset ii is formulated as E(Ri)=Rf+βi(E(Rm)−Rf)E(R_i) = R_f + \beta_i (E(R_m) - R_f), where RfR_f is the , βi\beta_i is the asset's beta measuring its relative to the market, E(Rm)E(R_m) is the expected market return, and E(Rm)−RfE(R_m) - R_f represents the market risk premium. This equation derives from the model's equilibrium conditions, positioning assets along the (SML), which plots expected returns against beta in a linear relationship. Alpha (α\alpha) emerges in the ex-post empirical test of CAPM through a time-series regression of the asset's excess returns on the market's excess returns: Ri,t−Rf,t=αi+βi(Rm,t−Rf,t)+ϵi,tR_{i,t} - R_{f,t} = \alpha_i + \beta_i (R_{m,t} - R_{f,t}) + \epsilon_{i,t}, where Ri,tR_{i,t} is the return on asset ii at time tt, Rm,tR_{m,t} is the market return at time tt, and ϵi,t\epsilon_{i,t} is the error term with zero mean under CAPM. Here, αi\alpha_i is the regression intercept, representing the average excess return not explained by the asset's beta exposure to . If CAPM holds perfectly, αi=0\alpha_i = 0; a positive αi>0\alpha_i > 0 indicates the asset outperforms the SML on a risk-adjusted basis, plotting above the line, while αi<0\alpha_i < 0 signifies underperformance below the SML. This formulation of alpha relies on key CAPM assumptions, including a single-period horizon, the absence of taxes and transaction costs, unlimited borrowing and lending at the , and market where the market portfolio is mean-variance efficient. These conditions ensure that any deviation captured by alpha reflects true superior performance rather than market frictions or differing investor horizons.

Historical Background

Origin of the Concept

The concept of alpha in finance traces its roots to Harry Markowitz's , introduced in his 1952 paper "Portfolio Selection," which emphasized the evaluation of investments based on risk-adjusted returns rather than absolute returns alone. Markowitz demonstrated that diversification could minimize unsystematic risk while optimizing portfolios along an , where expected returns are maximized for a given level of portfolio variance, thereby highlighting the need to distinguish between total risk and its components. This foundation evolved with the development of the (CAPM) by in 1964, which provided a theoretical framework for pricing assets based on their contribution to overall . In CAPM, an asset's is linearly related to its , measured by beta, leaving any excess return attributable to factors beyond market exposure as a measure of non-systematic performance. Sharpe's model thus introduced the idea of abnormal returns that could not be explained by alone, representing the essence of what would later be quantified as alpha. Sharpe's key contribution lay in conceptualizing this performance differential as the deviation between an asset's realized return and the return predicted by the CAPM equilibrium, enabling investors to assess whether a portfolio or security outperformed expectations adjusted for risk. This was formally articulated in his seminal article "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk," published in The Journal of Finance, which built directly on Markowitz's diversification principles to derive market-wide equilibrium pricing. The framework established alpha's role as a benchmark for evaluating managerial skill in generating returns independent of market movements. This foundational concept was later refined and explicitly termed "alpha" by Michael Jensen in his 1968 analysis of mutual fund performance, providing an empirical measure for the CAPM intercept.

Jensen's Alpha

In 1968, Michael C. Jensen published a seminal empirical study on mutual fund performance that introduced a key risk-adjusted measure of portfolio returns, now known as Jensen's alpha. This work built upon the foundational Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to assess whether fund managers could generate returns exceeding those expected from market exposure alone. Jensen's methodology involved a regression-based approach to estimate the alpha for 115 open-end mutual funds over the 1945–1964 period. He regressed each fund's monthly returns against the market returns to isolate the intercept term, representing the average excess return attributable to the manager's security selection skill after adjusting for . This technique allowed for a direct test of managerial forecasting ability, distinguishing it from passive market strategies. The empirical results revealed that the average alpha across the funds was negative, indicating underperformance relative to CAPM benchmarks even before accounting for fees. Specifically, only 3 funds showed statistically significant positive alphas, with the vast majority failing to outperform a simple buy-and-hold market index on a risk-adjusted basis; after management expenses, no funds demonstrated superior skill. These findings suggested that managers lacked consistent predictive ability and could not justify their costs through excess returns. Jensen's alpha has since become the standardized term for this CAPM-derived performance metric, widely adopted in for evaluating and influencing subsequent research on market efficiency. Its legacy lies in providing a rigorous, quantifiable framework that challenged claims of widespread managerial outperformance.

Relationships with Risk Measures

Relation to Beta

Beta serves as a measure of , quantifying an asset's volatility relative to the overall market. In the (CAPM), beta captures the portion of an asset's return variability attributable to market movements, where a beta greater than 1 indicates higher sensitivity to market fluctuations and thus greater . Alpha depends on beta by evaluating performance after isolating and accounting for the returns expected from beta-driven systematic risk. Specifically, alpha represents the excess return generated beyond what the CAPM predicts based on the asset's beta, allowing investors to assess whether a manager has added value independent of market exposure. In joint interpretation, alpha and beta together provide a fuller picture of risk-adjusted performance within the CAPM framework. A high beta paired with positive alpha suggests effective management of elevated systematic risk, as the asset delivers superior returns after adjusting for its market sensitivity. Conversely, a low beta combined with negative alpha indicates underperformance, where the asset fails to meet even modest market-related expectations. For example, based on monthly data up to December 2011, (AAPL) with a beta of 1.45 and of 1.13% outperformed (GE) with a beta of 1.18 and of 0.13% on a risk-adjusted basis, demonstrating how a higher can signal stronger performance despite greater exposure.

Comparison with Other Performance Metrics

, as a measure of excess return relative to , differs from other risk-adjusted performance metrics in its focus on the (CAPM) framework. The , introduced by , evaluates total excess return per unit of total , measured by the standard deviation of returns, making it suitable for assessing overall portfolio volatility including both systematic and unsystematic components. In contrast, isolates performance attributable to manager skill beyond what beta explains, ignoring unsystematic that the explicitly penalizes. The , developed by Jack Treynor, measures excess return per unit of via beta, offering a ratio-based alternative to alpha's intercept from the CAPM regression. While both alpha and the emphasize exposure in relation to the market, the Treynor metric normalizes returns by beta to gauge efficiency, whereas alpha quantifies absolute outperformance after beta adjustment. This similarity positions the as a complementary tool for CAPM adherents, but it assumes diversification eliminates unsystematic risk, much like alpha. Investors adhering to CAPM principles often prefer alpha or the to evaluate skill in generating returns above market expectations on a systematic risk basis. Conversely, the is more appropriate for diversified portfolios where total risk matters, as it captures the full spectrum of volatility and rewards consistent excess returns regardless of market correlation. A key limitation of alpha relative to these metrics is its disregard for unsystematic risk, which the addresses by incorporating standard deviation, potentially providing a more holistic view of performance in non-fully diversified contexts. This oversight can lead to overestimation of manager ability if idiosyncratic volatility is high, whereas the shares alpha's focus on beta but offers a proportional that may highlight relative more clearly.

Practical Applications

Portfolio Evaluation

In portfolio evaluation, alpha serves as a key metric for assessing the skill of active managers in mutual funds and funds, where a positive alpha indicates the ability to generate excess returns beyond what would be expected from market exposure alone. For mutual funds, which typically track broad equity benchmarks, empirical studies have shown that few funds achieve sustained positive alpha, underscoring the challenges of consistent outperformance through security selection. In contrast, hedge funds often exhibit positive alphas when evaluated against multi-factor models, signaling potential managerial skill in exploiting non-linear strategies or alternative exposures, though this can be overstated if models fail to capture hidden betas. Benchmarks for alpha calculation vary by asset class to ensure relevance; for equity-focused portfolios like mutual funds, the is a standard reference, capturing broad U.S. market performance, while alternative investments such as hedge funds employ customized benchmarks incorporating factors like trend-following or indices to better reflect their dynamic strategies. To refine alpha estimates in portfolio evaluation, practitioners extend the single-factor (CAPM) to multi-factor frameworks, such as the Fama-French three-factor model, which adjusts for size (SMB) and value (HML) premiums alongside , providing a more accurate measure of skill by isolating returns not explained by these common risk factors. A prominent is Warren Buffett's , which has demonstrated sustained positive alpha relative to traditional benchmarks over decades, with an annualized alpha of approximately 12% from 1976 to 2011 when evaluated against public market factors, though much of this is attributable to systematic tilts toward value, , and low-volatility stocks amplified by moderate leverage.

Calculation Methods

To compute alpha for an asset or portfolio, the primary method involves collecting historical return data and applying analysis to isolate the intercept term, which represents alpha. The process begins by gathering monthly returns for the asset or portfolio over a stable period, typically 3 to 5 years (36 to 60 months) to ensure sufficient data points for reliable estimation while capturing market cycles. Next, obtain corresponding returns for a relevant benchmark index, such as the for U.S. equities, and the , often proxied by the yield on short-term U.S. Treasury bills. Historical returns can be sourced from financial data providers like Yahoo Finance for adjusted closing prices to calculate percentage changes, or professional terminals like Bloomberg for comprehensive, real-time adjusted data including dividends and splits. Risk-free rates are available from the U.S. Department of the Treasury website or integrated feeds in platforms like Bloomberg. Once data is compiled, adjust returns to excess returns by subtracting the from both the asset/portfolio and benchmark series. Then, perform an ordinary (OLS) of the asset's excess returns (dependent variable) against the benchmark's excess returns (independent variable); the resulting intercept coefficient is alpha, indicating average excess return not explained by . Several accessible tools facilitate this computation. In , import into columns, use the Data Analysis ToolPak's Regression feature or the LINEST function to output the intercept as alpha, with options to annualize by multiplying by 12 for monthly . For more advanced analysis, Python's statsmodels library supports OLS regression via the sm.OLS function, allowing scripted automation with libraries like for handling from CSV exports of Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg. Similarly, R's base lm function performs the regression efficiently, integrating well with packages like quantmod for direct import from sources such as Yahoo Finance.

Limitations and Criticisms

Key Assumptions and Shortcomings

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), on which alpha is based, relies on several key assumptions that do not fully hold in real-world markets. One core assumption is that all investors have homogeneous expectations regarding future returns, risks, and correlations of securities, leading them to hold the same efficient portfolios. Another is the absence of market frictions, such as transaction costs, taxes, and restrictions on short selling, allowing for frictionless trading and unlimited borrowing and lending at the risk-free rate. These assumptions imply that systematic risk, measured by beta, fully captures expected returns, rendering alpha as the sole indicator of excess performance due to skill. However, these premises face significant shortcomings in practice. Real markets exhibit heterogeneous expectations influenced by diverse sources and behavioral factors, undermining the model's predictive power. Moreover, pervasive market frictions, including trading costs and constraints, distort portfolio construction and returns. A major critique arises from multifactor risks beyond beta; empirical tests show that CAPM alphas often reflect compensation for unaccounted factors like firm (smaller outperforming larger ones) and value (high book-to-market yielding higher returns), rather than true skill. Alpha estimation also suffers from statistical vulnerabilities that compromise its reliability. The measure is highly sensitive to benchmark selection; different indices or models can yield varying alphas for the same portfolio, as benchmarks may not accurately reflect the portfolio's exposures or style. bias exacerbates this, where researchers or managers test numerous strategies on historical data, inflating apparent through chance discoveries rather than robust signals—studies adjusting for multiple testing show many "significant" vanish. Short sample periods further amplify errors, as alpha estimates require long horizons to distinguish from , yet limited data leads to unstable betas and overstated performance. Economically, positive alphas are often misattributed to managerial when they may stem from or biases in . In mutual funds, for instance, apparent outperformance frequently results from random variation in returns, with rare after accounting for costs—cross-sectional analyses reveal that top performers are largely indistinguishable from in subsequent periods. compounds this issue, as studies excluding underperforming or defunct funds overestimate average alphas; including all funds shows net alphas closer to zero or negative. Post-1960s underscores these flaws, with numerous studies finding average alphas near zero after costs across mutual funds and portfolios. Jensen's seminal of 115 funds from 1945–1964 reported most alphas negative after expenses, suggesting no widespread in beating the market. Subsequent research, including large-scale reviews of active funds, confirms this pattern: gross alphas may cluster around zero before costs, but transaction fees and expenses drive net alphas negative by 1–2% annually on average.

Modern Perspectives and Alternatives

In behavioral finance, the persistence of alpha is challenged by the recognition that market inefficiencies stem from systematic investor biases, such as overconfidence, , and , which create temporary mispricings but limit the ability of to fully exploit them due to noise trader risk and limits to . These biases lead to deviations from that question the long-term of superior risk-adjusted returns, as alpha opportunities may erode quickly once behavioral anomalies are identified and corrected. Modern asset pricing models have evolved beyond the single-factor CAPM to better isolate true alpha by accounting for additional systematic risks. The Fama-French three-factor model, introduced in 1993, augments the market factor with size (small minus big) and value (high minus low book-to-market) factors, demonstrating that these explain a significant portion of cross-sectional return variations previously attributed to alpha under CAPM. Empirical tests show the model captures common risk factors in stock returns, reducing apparent alphas for portfolios loaded on size or value characteristics. The Carhart four-factor model builds on this by incorporating a momentum factor (winners minus losers over the prior year), which accounts for the empirical anomaly where recent outperformers continue to generate excess returns, further refining alpha estimates by attributing momentum persistence to a priced risk rather than managerial skill. In mutual fund performance analysis, this addition explains up to 31 basis points of the spread between top and bottom performers monthly, revealing that much of observed persistence is momentum-driven rather than alpha. As alternatives to standalone alpha, metrics emphasizing risk-adjusted consistency and downside protection have gained prominence. The information ratio, defined as alpha divided by the standard deviation of alpha (or active return tracking error), quantifies the reliability of excess returns relative to the benchmark, with higher values indicating more consistent outperformance per unit of active . Originating in the Treynor-Black framework for portfolio construction, it prioritizes managers who generate alpha with low variability, aiding in the selection of skilled active strategies. Complementing this, the measures excess return over the downside deviation (volatility of returns below a target threshold), focusing solely on harmful rather than total volatility, thus providing a nuanced view of performance in asymmetric return distributions. Developed to address the limitations of symmetric measures like the , it better aligns with investor concerns over losses, often yielding higher values for strategies with positive . By 2025, current trends highlight AI's role in alpha generation within quantitative funds, where algorithms analyze non-linear data interactions to enhance short-term forecasts, contributing as much as 50% of alpha in certain long/short equity strategies managing billions in assets. These tools enable continuous model refinement, improving alpha consistency across quarters. Concurrently, the application of generative AI has expanded into fundamental alpha research, where autonomous agents—such as Alpha Analyst and Hebbia—process unstructured data to accelerate insights, synthesize information from documents like filings and transcripts, and support information advantages in investment analysis. However, amid growing market efficiency fueled by passive investing's dominance—which has reduced the pool of exploitable mispricings and increased competition—alpha opportunities are diminishing, with active managers' excess returns shrinking and the proportion of skilled outperformers falling below 2% in recent decades. This trend underscores a shift toward alternative assets and specialized factors for any remaining alpha.

References

  1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=244153
  2. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/code/gips/measures-risk-adjusted-return.pdf
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/alpha.asp
  4. https://analystnotes.com/cfa-study-notes-the-definition-of-alpha.html
  5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.tb02865.x
  6. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0895330042162430
  7. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00815.x
  8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X25001266
  10. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326076
  11. https://en.saif.sjtu.edu.cn/junpan/slides/Slides1_Class3.pdf
  12. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/102714/whats-difference-between-alpha-and-beta.asp
  13. http://e-m-h.org/Jens68.pdf
  14. https://www.mit.edu/~kothari/attach/kwmfjanuary98.pdf
  15. https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/sr/sr.htm
  16. https://escholarship.org/content/qt3839g8f6/qt3839g8f6_noSplash_1cfd448fe5c934dfc5236767f6f4578a.pdf
  17. https://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/mawi.inst.140/Articles/Eling/Eling_Faust_JBF_2010.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X2400028X
  19. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/Fama-French_JFE93.pdf
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2469/faj.v74.n4.3
  21. https://analystprep.com/cfa-level-1-exam/portfolio-management/calculate-and-interpret-the-sharpe-ratio-treynor-ratio-m2-and-jensens-alpha/
  22. https://www.kotaksecurities.com/investing-guide/mutual-funds/what-is-jensens-alpha-in-mutual-funds/
  23. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/Bloombergfull.pdf
  24. https://www.iese.edu/media/research/pdfs/DI-0822-E.pdf
  25. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-components-concept-alpha-172042004.html
  26. https://investexcel.net/jensens-alpha-excel/
  27. http://www.turingfinance.com/regression-analysis-using-python-statsmodels-and-quandl/
  28. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch3deriv.html
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368122001790
  30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
  31. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18050/w18050.pdf
  32. https://dachxiu.chicagobooth.edu/download/Alpha.pdf
  33. https://people.duke.edu/~charvey/Research/Published_Papers/P151_Luck_versus_skill.pdf
  34. https://alphaarchitect.com/after-tax-performance/
  35. https://lbsresearch.london.edu/id/eprint/3548/1/1-s2.0-S0304405X23001770-main.pdf
  36. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/inefficient-markets-9780198292272
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227467436_Inefficient_Markets_An_Introduction_To_Behavioral_Finance
  38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(93)90023-5
  39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x
  40. https://tsgperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Goodwin-information-ratio.pdf
  41. https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijpormgmt/17/4/27
  42. https://www.top1000funds.com/2025/04/how-ai-will-propel-quant-2-0/
  43. https://alpha-analyst.com/
  44. https://www.hebbia.com/resources/ai-agents-in-finance
  45. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/investment-news/the-incredible-shrinking-alpha
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.