This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Rating mutual funds

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Bechmann, Ken L. (Department of Finance, Copenhagen Business School)
Rangvid , Jesper (Department of Finance, Copenhagen Business School)
Abstract

We develop a new rating of mutual funds: the atpRating. The atpRating assigns crowns to each individual mutual fund based upon the costs an investor pays when investing in the fund in relation to what it would cost to invest in the fund’s peers. Within each investment category, the rating assigns five crowns to funds with the lowest costs and one crown to funds with the highest costs. We investigate the ability of the atpRating to predict the future performance of a fund. We find that an investor who has invested in the funds with the lowest costs within an investment category would have obtained an annual risk-adjusted excess return that is approximately 3-4 percentage points higher per annum than if the funds with the highest costs had been invested in. We compare the atpRating with the Morningstar Rating. We show that one reason why the atpRating and the Morningstar Rating contain different information is that the returns Morningstar uses as inputs when rating funds are highly volatile whereas the costs the atpRating uses as inputs when rating funds are highly persistent. In other words, a fund that has low costs one year will most likely also have low costs the following year, whereas the return of a fund in a certain year generally contains only little information about the future return that the fund will generate. Finally, we have information on the investments in different mutual funds made by a small subgroup of investors known to have been exposed to both the atpRating and the Morningstar Rating, i.e. information is provided on how investors use the two ratings. We find that investors have a clear preference for high-rated funds.

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.

File URL: http://openarchive.cbs.dk/cbsweb/handle/10398/7194
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Copenhagen Business School, Department of Finance in its series Working Papers with number 2005-6.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 49 pages
Date of creation: 29 Jun 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:cbsfin:2005_006

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Finance, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, A5, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: +45 3815 3815
Email:
Web page: http://www.cbs.dk/departments/finance/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Lars Nondal).

Related research
Keywords: investor-cost based rating; funds;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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.:
  1. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Blake, Christopher R & Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J, 1993. "The Performance of Bond Mutual Funds," Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 370-403, July.
  3. Malcolm Baker & Lubomir Litov & Jessica A. Wachter & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2004. "Can Mutual Fund Managers Pick Stocks? Evidence from the Trades Prior to Earnings Announcements," NBER Working Papers 10685, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Christensen, Michael, 2003. "Evaluating Danish Mutual Fund Performance," Finance Working Papers 03-4, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Business Studies. [Downloadable!]
  5. Diane Del Guercio & Paula A. Tkac, 2001. "Star power: the effect of Morningstar ratings on mutual fund flows," Working Paper 2001-15, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Blake, Christopher R. & Morey, Matthew R., 2000. "Morningstar Ratings and Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(03), pages 451-483, September. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can create a compilation of all publications of a group of people, say alumni of a program, your students or memers of an association.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-15.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.