{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018140589569160998, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.445255474452555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Verifying Return-Based Style Analysis Using Composition-Based Factor Returns

Abstract There are strong arguments for both the composition-based and returns-based approach to style analysis. Several studies have used these techniques for the purpose of identifying unit trusts that are misclassified in terms of their category. By expanding on a well-established technique, this study investigates whether substituting composition-based style factor returns in a returns-based style analysis framework is able to support the findings of the returns-based style analysis. While both techniques of style analysis are capable of identifying misclassified funds they only give partially consistent results. The technique prevents a fund from being reclassified in terms of a returns-based style analysis if such a reclassification is not supported by a composition-based style analysis.