IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Eliminating Biases in Evaluating Mutual Fund Performance from a Survivorship Free Sample

Listed author(s):
  • Jenke R. ter Horst
  • Theo E. Nijman
  • Marno Verbeek

Poor performing mutual funds are less likely to be observed in the data sets that are typically available. This so-called survivor problem can induce a substantial bias in measures of the performance of the funds and the persistence of this performance. Many studies have recently argued that survivorship bias can be avoided by analyzing a sample that contains returns on each fund up to the period of disappearance using standard techniques. Such data sets are usually referred to as 'survivorship free'. In this paper we show that the use of standard methods of analysis on a 'survivorship free' data-set typically still suffers from a bias and we show how one can easily correct for this using weights based on probit regressions. Using a sample with quarterly returns on U.S. based equity funds, we first of all model how survival probabilities depend upon historical returns, the age of the fund and upon aggregate economy-wide shocks. Subsequently we employ a Monte Carlo study to analyze the size and shape of the survivorship bias in various performance measures that arise when a 'survivorship free database' is used with standard techniques. In particular, we show that survivorship bias induces a spurious U-shape pattern in performance persistence. Finally, we show how a weighting procedure based upon probit regressions can be used to correct for the bias. In this way, we obtain bias-corrected estimates of abnormal performance relative to a one-factor and the Carhart [1997] four-factor model, as well as its persistence. Our results are in accordance with the persistence pattern found by Carhart [1997], and do not support the existence of a hot hand phenomenon in mutual fund performance.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers Department of Economics with number ces9820.

in new window

Date of creation: Mar 1998
Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces9820
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces9820. See general 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: (library EBIB)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.