Investors face significant barriers in evaluating the performance of hedge funds and commodity trading advisors (CTAs). The only available performance data comes from voluntary reporting to private companies. Funds have incentives to strategically report to these companies, causing these data sets to be severely biased. And, because hedge funds use nonlinear, state-dependent, leveraged strategies, it has proven difficult to determine whether they add value relative to benchmarks. We focus on commodity trading advisors, a subset of hedge funds, and show that during the period 1994-2007 CTA excess returns to investors (i.e., net of fees) averaged 85 basis points per annum over US T-bills, which is insignificantly different from zero. We estimate that CTAs on average earned gross excess returns (i.e., before fees) of 5.4%, which implies that funds captured most of their performance through charging fees. Yet, even before fees we find that CTAs display no alpha relative to simple futures strategies that are in the public domain. We argue that CTAs appear to persist as an asset class despite their poor performance, because they face no market discipline based on credible information. Our evidence suggests that investors' experience of poor performance is not common knowledge.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number
14424.
Length: Date of creation: Oct 2008 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:14424
Note: AP CF Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Phone: 617-868-3900 Email: Web page: http://www.nber.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Find related papers by JEL classification: G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
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.:
Stephen J. Brown & William N. Goetzmann, 2001.
"Hedge Funds With Style,"
NBER Working Papers
8173, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
ter Horst, Jenke R. & Nijman, Theo E. & de Roon, Frans A., 2004.
"Evaluating style analysis,"
Journal of Empirical Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 29-53, January.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Roon.F.A. de, & Nijman, T.E. & Horst, J.R. ter, 2000.
"Evaluating style analysis,"
Discussion Paper
64, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
[Downloadable!]
Roon, F.A. de & Nijman, T.E. & Werker, B.J.M., 2000.
"Evaluating Style Analysis,"
Research Paper
ERS-2000-11-F&A Revision_, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus Uni.
[Downloadable!]