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

Blake, D., Caulfield, T., Ioannidis, C. & Tonks, I. (2017). New Evidence on Mutual Fund Performance: A Comparison of Alternative Bootstrap Methods (Report No. PI - 1404). London, UK: Pension Institute, ISSN 1367 - 580X.

This is the latest version of this item.

[img]
Preview
Text (Internet Appendix) - Supplemental Material
Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text - Draft Version
Download (586kB) | Preview

Abstract

We compare two bootstrap methods for assessing mutual fund performance. Kosowski, Timmermann, Wermers and White (2006) produces narrow confidence intervals due to pooling over time, while Fama and French (2010) produces wider confidence intervals because it preserves the cross-correlation of fund returns. We then show that the average UK 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.

Item Type: Monograph (Discussion Paper)
Additional Information: Available at http://www.pensions-institute.org/workingpapers/wp1404.pdf
Uncontrolled Keywords: mutual funds, unit trusts, open ended investment companies, performance measurement, factor benchmark models, bootstrap methods
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HG Finance
Divisions: Cass Business School > Faculty of Finance
URI: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/17349

Available Versions of this Item

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics