This paper evaluates the Morningstar mutual fund ranking system. We find that indeed higher Morningstar ratings are associated with higher returns on the portfolios including respectively five-, four-, three-, two- and one-star funds only (STAR5 to STAR1). We then perform an unconditional and conditional portfolio performance evaluation. In both cases the evidence suggests that the better performance of the STAR3, STAR4 and STAR5 categories reflects superior stock selection rather than market timing abilities. Overall, the implication for the Morningstar ranking system is that this is most effective in identifying the worst-performing funds (STAR1 or STAR2) rather than the best-performing ones.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number
CESifo Working Paper No. 2580.
Find related papers by JEL classification: G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Pension Funds; Other Private Financial Institutions
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Brown, Stephen J & Goetzmann, William N, 1995.
" Performance Persistence,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 679-98, June.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)