Fama, French, and the Hidden Architecture of Returns
Most investors, when they buy a mutual fund, look at one thing above everything else.
Returns.
Five-star rating. Three-year CAGR. Maybe the fund manager's name. And then they invest.
What very few investors stop to ask is — what is driving those returns? Not the fund house, not the manager's instinct, not luck — but the underlying systematic reason why certain stocks tend to outperform over time.
This question led two American economists, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, to one of the most important discoveries in modern investing. And understanding their work does not just make you a smarter investor. It fundamentally changes what you think you are buying — and why.
The Old World — One Factor Ruled Everything
For decades, the dominant idea in finance was elegantly simple.
The more risk you take, the more return you should earn. Specifically, stocks that move more with the overall market — stocks with high beta — should deliver higher long-term returns than stocks that move less.
This was the Capital Asset Pricing Model, or CAPM. And for a while, it seemed to explain a great deal.
But Fama and French noticed something uncomfortable. When they studied decades of stock market data, they found that beta alone — how much a stock moved with the market — did not fully explain why some stocks consistently outperformed others.
There was something else going on. More than one thing, in fact.
The Three Factors That Changed Everything
In 1992, Fama and French published a paper that quietly reshaped how serious investors think about returns. They found that a large part of the differences in long-term average stock returns could be explained by three systematic factors, not beta alone.
Factor 1 — The Market Factor
This is the original CAPM idea, preserved. Stocks as a category outperform cash and bonds over long periods because they carry more risk. You are rewarded for staying invested in equities at all. This one nobody debates.
Factor 2 — The Size Factor (Small Minus Big)
Smaller companies, on average, have historically delivered higher returns than larger companies. Not because small companies are better businesses — often they are not — but because they carry risks that large companies do not. They are harder to exit in a panic, less liquid, more vulnerable to economic shocks. Investors demand a higher return to hold them. Over long periods, historically, they have received it.
Factor 3 — The Value Factor (High Minus Low)
Companies with low prices relative to their fundamentals — their book value, earnings, or cash flows — have historically outperformed companies with high prices relative to fundamentals. In simple terms: cheap stocks, on average, have beaten expensive stocks over time.
Not because cheap stocks are glamorous. Quite the opposite. Value stocks are usually unglamorous, slow-moving businesses in boring industries. Nobody is excited about them. One explanation is that these companies carry risks investors find genuinely uncomfortable, requiring higher expected returns to compensate. Another, rooted in behavioural finance, argues that investors often become overly pessimistic about such businesses, creating pricing gaps that patient investors can exploit. Both explanations have merit, and both suggest the same thing in practice: the opportunity exists because holding these stocks is difficult.
These three together — market, size, and value — explained a large proportion of long-term portfolio returns. It was a genuinely powerful finding.
Then Came Momentum
A few years later, researcher Mark Carhart built on work by Jegadeesh and Titman to add a fourth factor that the three-factor model had not accounted for — and it was perhaps the most counterintuitive of all.
Factor 4 — Momentum
Stocks that have performed well over the past six to twelve months tend to continue performing well in the near term. Stocks that have performed poorly tend to continue performing poorly.
This sounds almost too simple to be true. And it sits uncomfortably against the idea that markets are efficient — that prices already reflect all available information. If that were strictly true, past performance should tell you nothing about the future.
But the data, across decades and across markets around the world, was stubborn. Momentum has been one of the most persistent empirical patterns observed across global markets. And it was not explained by the other three factors.
The most widely accepted explanation is behavioural. Investors tend to underreact to new information — good news about a company gets absorbed slowly, not all at once. Prices drift upward gradually rather than jumping immediately to fair value. This drift, combined with herding as more investors notice the rising trend, creates the momentum effect. The trend feeds itself — until it eventually reverses, usually sharply.
Momentum is essentially a bet on the short-term persistence of human behaviour. And for long stretches of time, it has paid off.
Beyond Four Factors
Fama and French, and Carhart, were not the end of the story. Since then, researchers have identified dozens of additional factors — profitability, quality, low volatility, investment patterns, and dividend yield among the most studied. Some have proved robust across markets and time periods. Others have faded after discovery, or failed to survive the friction of real-world investing.
Not every published factor deserves your money. The ones most worth paying attention to are those supported by strong economic reasoning — not just statistical coincidence — and validated by evidence across multiple markets and long time horizons.
What You Are Actually Buying
So when you hear a fund described as a "value fund" or a "momentum fund" or a "small-cap fund" — you now know exactly what is being said.
You are primarily buying systematic exposure to a documented factor — a return driver that has historically rewarded investors who were patient enough to hold it through its inevitable rough patches — rather than relying solely on a manager's stock-picking skill.
This is what factor investing, also called smart beta investing, really means. Many factor strategies are implemented through smart beta indices that systematically tilt toward these documented return drivers. Instead of trying to pick individual stocks or trust a fund manager's judgement entirely, you tilt your portfolio toward factors that have historically delivered excess returns.
In India, you can see this at work. Small-cap index funds give you the size factor. Value funds run by most AMCs are, in essence, loading up on the value factor — buying stocks with low valuations based on measures such as price-to-book, price-to-earnings, or other valuation screens. Momentum funds, now available from several fund houses, run systematic screens every quarter to hold the recent winners and exit the laggards.
You are not making a prediction about any individual company. You are making a bet that a historical pattern — rooted in human behaviour and genuine economic risk — will continue to show up over time.
The Uncomfortable Question — Do Factors Still Work?
Here is where the story gets more interesting. And more honest.
Once Fama and French published their findings, a curious thing began to happen. The returns of value stocks, particularly in the US, started to compress. The value premium — the extra return that cheap stocks had historically delivered — became smaller and less reliable.
Research by McLean and Pontiff, examining 97 factors published in academic journals, found that on average a factor's returns decay by about 32% after publication. The mechanism is intuitive: once a premium is discovered and publicised, more capital chases it. As more money piles into the same trade, the pricing inefficiency that created the premium gets partially competed away.
Does this mean factor investing is dead? Not quite. Decay is real, but most factors do not disappear entirely — they compress. And importantly, risk-based premiums — those that exist because holding a factor is genuinely uncomfortable — are harder to arbitrage away than behaviour-based ones. Investors cannot simply wish away the discomfort of holding beaten-down value stocks through a multi-year growth rally.
Which brings us to the most important insight of all.
Factors work, in large part, because holding them is uncomfortable. Value stocks underperform for years before they mean-revert. Small caps get crushed in every major downturn. Momentum portfolios experience brutal, sudden reversals. If holding a factor were easy and reliable, everyone would do it, returns would compress to zero, and the premium would vanish entirely.
The returns exist, in part, because most investors cannot tolerate the pain required to earn them.
The Indian Context
In India, factor investing is still relatively young as an explicit strategy, but the underlying dynamics are very much at work.
The small-cap story between 2022 and early 2024 is a good example of momentum at work — and of what happens when it reverses. The BSE SmallCap index delivered over 70% returns in that period. Investors poured into small-cap funds chasing recent performance, valuations stretched well beyond historical averages, and when sentiment turned, the correction was sharp. By early 2025, a large number of small-cap stocks had fallen more than 50% from their peaks.
Value investing in India has historically been rewarding, but it requires a patience that most investors find genuinely difficult. Holding PSU banks or commodity stocks when technology and consumer names are drawing all the attention is not comfortable. That discomfort is, in a sense, exactly what you are being paid to endure.
The key insight for an Indian investor is this: when you see a factor-based fund outperforming strongly, it is often the worst time to enter — because the easy part of the cycle is already behind you. And when a factor has been underperforming for two or three years and nobody is talking about it, that is often when the real opportunity quietly begins.
What This Changes in Practice
You do not need to build a quant portfolio or run screening models to use these ideas.
But knowing about factors changes how you read a fund's performance. A value fund that has underperformed for three years is not necessarily badly managed. It may simply be in a phase where its factor is out of favour — and could be closer to the beginning of its next cycle than the end.
It also changes how you think about diversification. A portfolio of five equity mutual funds that all tilt heavily toward the same factor — say, large-cap growth — is not truly diversified, however many funds it contains. True diversification, at a deeper level, means exposure to different return drivers that do not all move together.
The Money Vichara Reflection
The next time you look at a fund and ask "is this a good fund?" — try asking a different question first.
What factor is this fund actually betting on? And am I prepared to hold it through the years when that factor is out of favour?
Because that is the real cost of earning a factor premium. Not just money. Time. Patience. The willingness to stay invested in something that looks wrong for long enough that it eventually becomes right.
Fama and French did not give us a formula for easy returns. They gave us a clearer picture of where returns come from — and a more honest account of what it costs to earn them.
The factors are well documented. The premiums have historically existed. But they are not guaranteed, and they tend to reward only those willing to endure the periods when they are most out of favour.
Factor-based strategies are not for every investor. They suit those who understand what they are buying, why they are holding it, and what kind of patience the strategy genuinely demands.
The discomfort is not separate from the reward.
It is the price of admission.
Comments
Post a Comment