IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jfinqa/v38y2003i02p251-274_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hedge Fund Performance 1990–2000: Do the “Money Machines†Really Add Value?

Author

Listed:
  • Amin, Gaurav S.
  • Kat, Harry M.

Abstract

We investigate the claim that hedge funds offer investors a superior risk-return tradeoff. We do so using a continuous-time version of Dybvig's (1988a), (1988b) payoff distribution pricing model. The evaluation model, which does not require any assumptions with regard to the return distribution of the funds to be evaluated, is applied to the monthly returns of 77 hedge funds and 13 hedge fund indices from May 1990–April 2000. The results show that, as a stand-alone investment, hedge funds do not offer a superior risk-return profile. We find 12 indices and 72 individual funds to be inefficient, with the average efficiency loss amounting to 2.76% per annum for indices and 6.42% for individual funds. Part of the inefficiency cost of individual funds can be diversified away. Funds of funds, however, are not the preferred vehicle for this as their performance appears to suffer badly from their double fee structure. Looking at hedge funds in a portfolio context results in a marked improvement in the evaluation outcomes. Seven of the 12 hedge fund indices and 58 of the 72 individual funds classified as inefficient on a stand-alone basis are capable of producing an efficient payoff profile when mixed with the S&P 500. The best results are obtained when 10%–20% of the portfolio value is invested in hedge funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Amin, Gaurav S. & Kat, Harry M., 2003. "Hedge Fund Performance 1990–2000: Do the “Money Machines†Really Add Value?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 251-274, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:38:y:2003:i:02:p:251-274_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022109000001605/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:38:y:2003:i:02:p:251-274_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jfq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.