Returns-based style analysis

About: Returns-based style analysis is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 961 publications have been published within this topic receiving 80832 citations.

On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance

Abstract: Using a sample free of survivor bias, I demonstrate that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses almost completely explain persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk-adjusted returns Hendricks, Patel and Zeckhauser's (1993) "hot hands" result is mostly driven by the one-year momentum effect of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), but individual funds do not earn higher returns from following the momentum strategy in stocks The only significant persistence not explained is concentrated in strong underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds The results do not support the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers PERSISTENCE IN MUTUAL FUND performance does not reflect superior stock-picking skill Rather, common factors in stock returns and persistent differences in mutual fund expenses and transaction costs explain almost all of the predictability in mutual fund returns Only the strong, persistent underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds remains anomalous Mutual fund persistence is well documented in the finance literature, but not well explained Hendricks, Patel, and Zeckhauser (1993), Goetzmann and Ibbotson (1994), Brown and Goetzmann (1995), and Wermers (1996) find evidence of persistence in mutual fund performance over short-term horizons of one to three years, and attribute the persistence to "hot hands" or common investment strategies Grinblatt and Titman (1992), Elton, Gruber, Das, and Hlavka (1993), and Elton, Gruber, Das, and Blake (1996) document mutual fund return predictability over longer horizons of five to ten years, and attribute this to manager differential information or stock-picking talent Contrary evidence comes from Jensen (1969), who does not find that good subsequent performance follows good past performance Carhart (1992) shows that persistence in expense ratios drives much of the long-term persistence in mutual fund performance My analysis indicates that Jegadeesh and Titman's (1993) one-year momentum in stock returns accounts for Hendricks, Patel, and Zeckhauser's (1993) hot hands effect in mutual fund performance However, funds that earn higher

The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964

Abstract: In this paper I derive a risk-adjusted measure of portfolio performance (now known as Jensen's Alpha) that estimates how much a manager's forecasting ability contributes to the fund's returns. The measure is based on the theory of the pricing of capital assets by Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965a) and Treynor (Undated). I apply the measure to estimate the predictive ability of 115 mutual fund managers in the period 1945-1964 - that is their ability to earn returns which are higher than those we would expect given the level of risk of each of the portfolios. The foundations of the model and the properties of the performance measure suggested here are discussed in Section II. The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. It is also important to note that these conclusions hold even when we measure the fund returns gross of management expenses (that is assume their bookkeeping, research, and other expenses except brokerage commissions were obtained free). Thus on average the funds apparently were not quite successful enough in their trading activities to recoup even their brokerage expenses.

Asset allocation: management style and performance measurement

Abstract: is widely agreed that asset allocation accounts for a large part of the variability in the return on a typical investor’s portfolio. This is especially true if the portfolio is invested in multiple funds, each including a number of securities. Asset allocation is generally defined as the allocation of an investor’s portfolio across a number of ”major” asset classes. Clearly such a generalization cannot be made operational without defining such classes. Once a set of asset classes has been defined, it is important to determine the exposures of each component of an investor’s overall portfolio to movements in their returns. Such information can be aggregated to determine the investor’s overall effective asset mix. If it does not conform to the desired mix, appropriate alterations can then be made. Once a procedure for measuring exposure to variations in returns of major asset classes is in place, it is possible to determine how effectively individual fund managers have performed their functions and the extent (if any) to which value has been added through active management. Finally, the effectiveness of the investor’s overall asset allocation can be compared with that of one or more benchmark, asset mixes. An effective way to accomplish all these tasks is to use an asset class factor model. After describing 7 5 w 8

Luck versus Skill in the Cross-Section of Mutual Fund Returns

Abstract: The aggregate portfolio of actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds is close to the market portfolio, but the high costs of active management show up intact as lower returns to investors. Bootstrap simulations suggest that few funds produce benchmark-adjusted expected returns sufficient to cover their costs. If we add back the costs in fund expense ratios, there is evidence of inferior and superior performance (nonzero true α) in the extreme tails of the cross-section of mutual fund α estimates. THERE IS A CONSTRAINT on the returns to active investing that we call equilibrium accounting. In short (details later), suppose that when returns are measured before costs (fees and other expenses), passive investors get passive returns, that is, they have zero α (abnormal expected return) relative to passive benchmarks. This means active investment must also be a zero sum game— aggregate α is zero before costs. Thus, if some active investors have positive α before costs, it is dollar for dollar at the expense of other active investors. After costs, that is, in terms of net returns to investors, active investment must be a negative sum game. (Sharpe (1991) calls this the arithmetic of active management.) We examine mutual fund performance from the perspective of equilibrium accounting. For example, at the aggregate level, if the value-weight (VW) portfolio of active funds has a positive α before costs, we can infer that the VW portfolio of active investments outside mutual funds has a negative α .I n other words, active mutual funds win at the expense of active investments outside mutual funds. We find that, in fact, the VW portfolio of active funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before expenses, its α relative to common benchmarks is close to zero. Since the VW portfolio of active funds produces α close to zero in gross (pre-expense) returns, α estimated on the net (post-expense) returns realized by investors is negative by about the amount of fund expenses. The aggregate results imply that if there are active mutual funds with positive true α, they are balanced by active funds with negative α. We test for the