IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jfinqa/v52y2017i03p1279-1299_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Evidence on Mutual Fund Performance: AÂ Comparison of Alternative Bootstrap Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Blake, David
  • Caulfield, Tristan
  • Ioannidis, Christos
  • Tonks, Ian

Abstract

We compare two bootstrap methods for assessing mutual fund performance. The first produces narrow confidence intervals due to pooling over time, whereas the second produces wider confidence intervals because it preserves the cross correlation of fund returns. We then show that the average U.K. equity mutual fund manager is unable to deliver outperformance net of fees under either bootstrap. Gross of fees, 95% of fund managers on the basis of the first bootstrap and all fund managers on the basis of the second bootstrap fail to outperform the luck distribution of gross returns.

Suggested Citation

  • Blake, David & Caulfield, Tristan & Ioannidis, Christos & Tonks, Ian, 2017. "New Evidence on Mutual Fund Performance: AÂ Comparison of Alternative Bootstrap Methods," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 1279-1299, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:52:y:2017:i:03:p:1279-1299_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022109017000229/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Imran Hussain Shah & Hans Matthias Wanovits & Richard Hatfield, 2021. "Uncovering investment management performance using SPIVA data," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 3676-3695, July.
    2. Keith Cuthbertson & Dirk Nitzsche & Niall O’Sullivan, 2023. "UK mutual funds: performance persistence and portfolio size," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(4), pages 284-298, July.
    3. Cheng, Tingting & Yan, Cheng & Yan, Yayi, 2021. "Improved inference for fund alphas using high-dimensional cross-sectional tests," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 57-81.
    4. Ayadi, Mohamed A. & Lazrak, Skander & Liao, Yusui & Welch, Robert, 2018. "Performance of fixed-income mutual funds with regime-switching models," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 217-231.
    5. Emmanuel Mamatzakis & Mike G. Tsionas, 2021. "Testing for persistence in US mutual funds’ performance: a Bayesian dynamic panel model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 299(1), pages 1203-1233, April.
    6. Huang, Haitao & Jiang, Lei & Leng, Xuan & Peng, Liang, 2023. "Bootstrap analysis of mutual fund performance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 239-255.
    7. Cuthbertson, Keith & Nitzsche, Dirk & O'Sullivan, Niall, 2022. "Mutual fund performance persistence: Factor models and portfolio size," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Christiansen, Charlotte & Grønborg, Niels S. & Nielsen, Ole L., 2020. "Mutual fund selection for realistically short samples," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 218-240.
    9. Hanke, Bernd & Keswani, Aneel & Quigley, Garrett & Zagonov, Maxim, 2018. "Survivorship bias and comparability of UK open-ended fund databases," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 110-114.
    10. Wolfgang Bessler & David Blake & Peter Lückoff & Ian Tonks, 2018. "Fund Flows, Manager Changes, and Performance Persistence [Does motivation matter when assessing trade performance? An analysis of mutual funds]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 22(5), pages 1911-1947.
    11. Buschong, René, 2022. "Financial Literacy is associated with Stock Market Expectations but not with Forecast Accuracy: Evidence from Germany," EconStor Preprints 266404, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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:52:y:2017:i:03:p:1279-1299_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.