IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ajbpps/v31y2016i4p227-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking mutual fund alpha

Author

Listed:
  • Qiang Bu

Abstract

Purpose - The standard market models assume that all investors are rational with the same level of risk aversion, whereas investors in the real world are neither rational nor homogeneous. This contrast makes these models inappropriate for evaluating manager skill. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bridge the gap between model assumption and fund investment practice. Design/methodology/approach - This study proposes a series of modified models using the excess return of peer funds to estimate fund alpha. In these models, the market excess return in the standard market models is replaced with the average excess return of bootstrapped funds. In addition, the author examines the reasons for the difference between the modified models and the standard models. Findings - The modified models better explain the variation of fund returns, and they exhibit that a considerably higher percentage of funds can earn positive alpha, thus the skill of fund managers is underestimated based on the standard market models. Originality/value - The proposed models provide a more reliable method for investors to identify skilled fund managers, and they can also serve as an objective benchmark in evaluating fund performance and in designing manager compensation packages.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiang Bu, 2016. "Benchmarking mutual fund alpha," American Journal of Business, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(4), pages 227-239, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ajbpps:v:31:y:2016:i:4:p:227-239
    DOI: 10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eme:ajbpps:v:31:y:2016:i:4:p:227-239. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.