Problem
Business Context
At NorthBridge Capital, a quant analyst is comparing two linear regression models for predicting monthly stock returns. The team wants to know why a model with more predictors can show a higher but still be a worse choice once model complexity is considered.
Problem Statement
You are given summary statistics for two regression models fit on the same 60 months of stock return data. Model A uses market excess return as the only predictor. Model B adds size, value, momentum, and short-term reversal factors. Explain the difference between and adjusted , compute both adjusted values, and determine which model is preferable based on goodness-of-fit after penalizing unnecessary predictors.
Given Data
| Model | Observations | Predictors | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Market-only | 60 | 1 | 0.082 |
| B: Multi-factor | 60 | 5 | 0.109 |
Assume both models include an intercept.
Requirements
- Define and adjusted in plain language.
- Compute adjusted for Model A.
- Compute adjusted for Model B.
- Compare the two models and explain why adjusted can decrease when new predictors are added.
- State which metric is more appropriate for comparing these two stock return models.
Assumptions
- Both models are estimated on the same response variable and same 60 monthly observations.
- Predictors were added without changing the sample period.
- The goal is in-sample explanatory comparison, not causal inference.
- Ignore out-of-sample validation for this exercise, though you should mention it in interpretation.
You are practicing as a guest. Sign up free to get your answer graded with AI feedback. Your draft stays right here.

