Eliminating biases in evaluating mutual fund performance from a survivorship free sample
AbstractPoor performing mutual funds are less likely to be observed in the data sets that are typically available. This so-called survivor problem can induce a substantial bias in measures of the performance of the funds and the persistence of this performance. Many studies have recently argued that survivorship bias can be avoided by analyzing a sample that contains returns on each fund up to the period of disappearance using standard techniques. Such data sets are usually referred to as 'survivorship free'. In this paper we show that the use of standard methods of analysis on a 'survivorship free' data-set typically still suffers from a bias and we show how one can easily correct for this using weights based on probit regressions. Using a sample with quarterly returns on U.S. based equity funds, we first of all model how survival probabilities depend upon historical returns, the age of the fund and upon aggregate economy-wide shocks. Subsequently we employ a Monte Carlo study to analyze the size and shape of the survivorship bias in various performance measures that arise when a 'survivorship free database' is used with standard techniques. In particular, we show that survivorship bias induces a spurious U-shape pattern in performance persistence. Finally, we show how a weighting procedure based upon probit regressions can be used to correct for the bias. In this way, we obtain bias-corrected estimates of abnormal performance relative to a one-factor and the Carhart  four-factor model, as well as its persistence. Our results are in accordance with the persistence pattern found by Carhart , and do not support the existence of a hot hand phenomenon in mutual fund performance.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research in its series Discussion Paper with number 98.55.
Date of creation: 1998
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://center.uvt.nl
performance evaluation; investment trusts;
Other versions of this item:
- Jenke R. ter Horst & Theo E. Nijman & Marno Verbeek, 1998. "Eliminating Biases in Evaluating Mutual Fund Performance from a Survivorship Free Sample," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces9820, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
- G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
- C34 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
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.:
- Mark M. Carhart & Jennifer N. Carpenter & Anthony W. Lynch & David K. Musto, 2002. "Mutual Fund Survivorship," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1439-1463.
- Pagan, Adrian & Vella, Frank, 1989. "Diagnostic Tests for Models Based on Individual Data: A Survey," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(S), pages S29-59, Supplemen.
- William N. Goetzmann & Stephen J. Brown, 2005.
Yale School of Management Working Papers
ysm451, Yale School of Management.
- Robert MOFFIT & John FITZGERALD & Peter GOTTSCHALK, 1999. "Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Role of Selection on Observables," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 55-56, pages 129-152.
- Grinblatt, Mark & Titman, Sheridan D, 1989.
"Mutual Fund Performance: An Analysis of Quarterly Portfolio Holdings,"
The Journal of Business,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(3), pages 393-416, July.
- Mark Grinblatt & Sheridan Titman, . "Mutual Fund Performance: An Analysis of Quarterly Portfolio Holdings," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 23-88, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
- Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Renault, Eric & Trognon, Alain, 1987. "Generalised residuals," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-32.
- Heckman, James, 2013.
"Sample selection bias as a specification error,"
Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
- Brown, Stephen J. & Goetzmann, William N., 1997.
"Mutual fund styles,"
Journal of Financial Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 373-399, March.
- María Engracia ROCHINA-BARRACHINA, 1999. "A New Estimator for Panel Data Sample Selection Models," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 55-56, pages 153-181.
- Brown, Stephen J, et al, 1992. "Survivorship Bias in Performance Studies," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 5(4), pages 553-80.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Richard Broekman).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.