Printer Friendly

1 Introduction.

This is a good time for a review of the academic literature on evaluating portfolio performance, concentrating on professionally managed investment portfolios. While the literature goes back to before the 1960s, recent years have witnessed an explosion of new methods for performance evaluation and new evidence on the subject. We think that several forces have contributed to this renaissance. The demand for research on managed portfolio performance increased as mutual funds and related investment vehicles became more important to investors in the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, equity investment became widely popular, as 401(k) and other defined-contribution investment plans began to dominate defined-benefit plans in the United States. Under such plans, individuals make their own investment choices from a menu of employer-specified options. At the same time, "babyboomers" reached an age where they had more money to invest, and new investment opportunities were developing for investors in Europe and Asia that increased the demand for professionally managed portfolio products. This period also witnessed an explosive growth in alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity vehicles.

While the demand for research on investment performance has increased, the cost of producing this research has declined. Early studies relied on proprietary or expensive commercial databases for their fund performance figures, or researchers collected data by hand from published paper volumes. In 1997, the Center for Research in Security Prices introduced the CRSP mutual fund database, compiled originally by Mark Carhart, into the academic research market. Starting in about 1994, several databases on hedge fund returns and characteristics became available to academic researchers. Of course, during the same period the costs of computing have declined dramatically. In response to an increased demand and lower costs of production, the supply of research on fund performance expanded dramatically.

This chapter provides a selective review of the methods for measuring portfolio performance and the evidence on the performance of professionally managed investment portfolios. As the relevant literature is vast and expanding quickly, a complete survey is virtually impossible. This one reflects its authors' interests, and no doubt, biases.

Chapter 2 reviews the classical measures of portfolio performance developed between about 1960 and 1990. Our review emphasizes a unifying theme. We measure the total performance by comparing the returns on the managed portfolio to the returns of an Otherwise Equivalent (our terminology) benchmark portfolio. This is a portfolio with the same risk and other relevant characteristics as the managed portfolio, but which does not reflect the manager's investment ability. A manager with investment ability generates higher returns than the otherwise equivalent alternative, at least before fees and costs are considered. We first present the traditional measures, then review the important problems and properties associated with these measures.

Early studies frequently attempt to distinguish security selection versus market timing abilities on the part of fund managers. Timing ability is the ability to use superior information about the future realizations of common factors that affect overall market returns. A manager with timing ability may alter the asset allocation between stocks and safe assets or among other broad asset classes. Selectivity refers to the use of security-specific information, such as the ability to pick winning stocks or bonds within an asset class. We develop this dichotomy and discuss the ability of various performance measures to capture it. This section closes with a review of the evidence for managed portfolio performance based on the traditional measures. This discussion touches on the issues of survivorship bias and persistence in performance, among other topics.

Chapter 3 discusses Conditional Performance Evaluation. Here, the idea is to measure performance accounting for the fact that the expected returns and risks for investing may vary over time depending on the state of the economy. An example motivates the approach. We then discuss simple modifications to the traditional measures that attempt to condition on the state of the economy by using lagged variables as instruments.

Chapter 4 discusses the Stochastic Discount Factor Approach to performance measurement. We show briefly how this is related to the traditional alpha, what advantages the approach may have, and some recent developments.

Chapter 5 summarizes and illustrates the main issues in implementing the performance measures using hypothetical numerical examples. The examples are from the perspective of a fund-of-fund that must evaluate the performance of a sample of hedge funds using historical returns data.

Chapter 6 presents a brief discussion of the measures for investment performance of fixed income funds and Chapter 7 discusses hedge funds. Research on these fund types is still in an early stage of development, and these types of funds seem to present unique challenges for measuring risk-adjusted performance and for interpreting performance measures.

In Chapter 8, we review the modern empirical evidence on fund performance, which begins in about 1995 when studies began to use the CRSP-Carhart mutual fund database. We review the evidence that conditional measures have produced, both on selectivity and market timing ability. Also, in the mid-1990s data on hedge fund returns and characteristics first became available to academic researchers. We include a review of the evidence on hedge-fund performance.

Chapter 9 provides tabular summaries of the historical evidence on the performance of mutual funds and hedge funds using actual data. We describe how this evidence is related to the classical question of the informational efficiency of the markets. The various performance measures are interpreted by using and referring back to the concepts developed earlier in the text and Chapter 10 is the conclusion.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Now Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Portfolio Performance Evaluation
Author:Aragon, George O.; Ferson, Wayne E.
Publication:Foundations and Trends in Finance
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Apr 1, 2006
Words:911
Previous Article:Portfolio performance evaluation.
Next Article:2 Classical measures of portfolio performance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters