Mutual Fund Performance Evaluation: A Comparison of Benchmarks and Benchmark Comparisons
AbstractOur primary goal in this paper is to ascertain whether the absolute and relative rankings of managed funds are sensitive to the benchmark chosen to measure normal performance. We employ the standard CAPM benchmarks and a variety of APT benchmarks to investigate this question. We found that there is little similarity between the absolute and relative mutual fund rankings obtained from alternative benchmarks which suggests the importance of knowing the appropriate model for risk and expected return in this context. In addition, the rankings are quite sensitive to the method used to construct the APT benchmark. One would reach very different conclusions about the funds' performance using smaller numbers of securities in the analysis or the less efficient methods for estimating the necessary factor models than one would arrive at using the maximum likelihood procedures with 750 securities. We did, however, find the rankings of the funds are not very sensitive to the exact number of common sources of systematic risk that are assumed to impinge on security returns. Finally, we found statistically significant measured abnormal performance using all the benchmarks. The economic explanation of this phenomenon appears to be an open question.
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 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 1721.
Date of creation: Aug 1987
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.