There still remains one portfolio where α is positively significant at the 5 % level.
Furthermore, the level of explanation has increased to a minimum of 52 % and a maximum of
86 %. However, it is still below the values obtained by the FF3FM (60 % - 89 %).
When we analyse the results they reveal that the FF3FM do have some difficulties achieving
optimal outcomes for the Swedish market. This is shown by the lowest adjusted R² value
being only 41 %, and by the wide spread between the lowest and highest value, for both the
individual years and for the period as a whole. In addition, the results reveal that several α:s
are positively significant at the 5 % level, leading to underestimations of the portfolio returns.
However, when removing the portfolios that stretch over the period of the 2007 financial
crisis, the adjusted R² values largely improves. This reveals that the FF3FM does in fact, to a
great extent, work for the Swedish market given certain conditions. The increase also reveals
that the FF3FM performs less effective when the market conditions are unstable. This is
further supported by the HML variable, assuming a negative value when the 2007 portfolios
are included in the regression and assuming a positive value when they are excluded.
Despite this, the FF3FM still outperforms the CAPM on the Swedish market regardless if the
market conditions are stable or not.