<\/a>How well can the small-value premium be captured using ETFs?<\/strong><\/p>\n In a previous post<\/a>, I plotted the returns of 25 portfolios which were formed by sorting stocks on both size and value characteristics.\u00a0 The data, from the Kenneth French website<\/a>, showed a clear pattern of increasing returns as size decreased and value (measured by book-to-market ratio) increased.\u00a0 In other words, the small-value portfolio had outperformed the broader market over most periods of 20 years or more, and the margin of outperformance was often quite large.\u00a0<\/p>\n Fama and French, who built the size and value effects into an asset pricing model, believe that the higher returns of small stocks and value stocks are related to the higher risks associated with holding these stocks.\u00a0 This may be true, and there is some persuasive evidence supporting the Fama-French viewpoint.\u00a0 However, another issue with capturing the small-value premium is cost.\u00a0 The returns of the Fama-French 25 portfolios do not include trading costs, fees, or taxes, and these costs are likely to be higher for investors who are trying to implement a small-value tilt in their personal portfolio.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n In this post, I\u00a0will evaluate several ETFs which track popular indexes and calculate how well these funds capture the theoretical returns predicted by the Fama-French model.\u00a0 In addition, I will place the factor loadings of these funds in the context of the Fama-French 25 portfolios.\u00a0 For example, does a fund which is described\u00a0as a \u201csmall-value\u201d fund really behave similarly to the most extreme small-value portfolio\u00a0from the Fama-French 25 portfolios?\u00a0 If not, which of the portfolios does it approximate most closely?\u00a0<\/p>\n The Fama-French regression equation is shown here:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n