Use of active peer benchmarks in assessing UK mutual fund performance and performance persistence

The majority of UK style-specific mutual funds either report a broad market index as their prospectus benchmark or give no benchmark at all – a practice that may be (a) strategic, or (b) cultural and attributable to the lack of UK style-specific indices (e.g. mid-cap-growth, small-cap-value). The choice of a broad market index as a benchmark can bias the inferences of a fund’s performance and performance persistence. This study is the first to provide an alternative to style-specific indices in the UK, and suggests the use style-specific peer group benchmarks, following [Hunter, D., E. Kandel, S. Kandel, and R. Wermers. 2014. “Mutual Fund Performance Evaluation with Active Peer Benchmarks.” Journal of Financial Economics 112 (1): 1–29]. Our sample comprises of 817 active UK long-only equity mutual funds allocated to nine Morningstar style categories (peer groups) during the period 1992–2016. We show that the funds with the most significant positive peer-group-adjusted alphas continue to perform well one year ahead, in terms of both parametric and non-parametric measures of persistence in performance. Moreover, persistence in performance is driven by both winner and loser funds. The results within each peer group are by and large consistent with these findings.     

Performance attribution of mutual funds in India: outperformance or mis‐representation?

We conduct a novel holdings‐based performance attribution, particularly suited to emerging markets, for equity‐oriented active mutual funds in India. Although, we find significantly positive alphas for an average fund, the stated benchmarks are grossly mis‐specified. A style‐adjusted benchmark could beat the stated benchmarks by greater margins than the funds themselves. While funds’ trading activity consistently adds value, cash drag and market timing usually diminish value. Although, the best‐performing funds exhibit superior security selection abilities, their outperformance does not persist. However, despite the lack of persistence winner funds continue to generate significantly higher alphas than loser funds for quite some time.     

Mutual fund corporate culture and performance

In this paper we test if a mutual fund's own corporate culture predicts fund performance. To do this we use Morningstar's corporate culture ratings for mutual funds and then examine the ability of these corporate culture ratings to predict risk-adjusted performance of domestic equity funds over the period 2005–2010. Using methods that are robust to survivorship bias, we find there is little significant evidence that corporate culture predicts better fund performance. Indeed, we find that no individual component of the Morningstar stewardship rating including board quality, fees, manager incentives and regulatory issues is able to consistently predict fund performance.     

Reverse Survivorship Bias

Mutual funds often disappear following poor performance. When this poor performance is partly attributable to negative idiosyncratic shocks, funds' estimated alphas understate their true alphas. This paper estimates a structural model to correct for this bias. Although most funds still have negative alphas, they are not nearly as low as those suggested by the fund‐by‐fund regressions. Approximately 12% of funds have net four‐factor model alphas greater than 2% per year. All studies that run fund‐by‐fund regressions to draw inferences about the prevalence of skill among mutual fund managers are subject to reverse survivorship bias.     

Conditional performance evaluation for German equity mutual funds

We investigate the conditional performance of a sample of German equity mutual funds over the period from 1994 to 2003 using both the beta-pricing approach and the stochastic discount factor (SDF) framework. On average, mutual funds cannot generate excess returns relative to their benchmark that are large enough to cover their total expenses. Compared to unconditional alphas, fund performance sharply deteriorates when we measure conditional alphas. Given that stock returns are to some extent predictable based on publicly available information, conditional performance evaluation raises the benchmark for active fund managers because it gives them no credit for exploiting readily available information. Underperformance is more pronounced in the SDF framework than in beta-pricing models. The fund performance measures derived from alternative model specifications differ depending on the number of primitive assets taken to calibrate the SDF as well as the number of instrument variables used to scale assets and/or factors.     

European Mutual Fund Performance

This paper presents an overview of the European mutual fund industry and investigates mutual fund performance using a survivorship bias controlled sample of 506 funds from the five most important mutual fund countries. The latter is done using the Carhart (1997) 4-factor asset-pricing model. In addition we investigate whether European fund managers exhibit 'hot hands', persistence in performance. Finally the influence of fund characteristics on risk-adjusted performance is considered. Our overall results suggest that European mutual funds, and especially small cap funds are able to add value, as indicated by their positive after cost alphas. If we add back management fees, four out of five countries exhibit significant out-performance at an aggregate level. Finally, we detect strong persistence in mean returns for funds investing in the UK. Our results deviate from most US studies that argue mutual funds under-perform the market by the amount of expenses they charge.     

Can Mutual Fund “Stars” Really Pick Stocks? New Evidence from a Bootstrap Analysis

We apply a new bootstrap statistical technique to examine the performance of the U.S. open‐end, domestic equity mutual fund industry over the 1975 to 2002 period. A bootstrap approach is necessary because the cross section of mutual fund alphas has a complex nonnormal distribution due to heterogeneous risk‐taking by funds as well as nonnormalities in individual fund alpha distributions. Our bootstrap approach uncovers findings that differ from many past studies. Specifically, we find that a sizable minority of managers pick stocks well enough to more than cover their costs. Moreover, the superior alphas of these managers persist.     

Returns from Investing in Equity Mutual Funds 1971 to 1991

Several recent studies suggest that equity mutual fund managers achieve superior returns and that considerable persistence in performance exists. This study utilizes a unique data set including returns from all equity mutual funds existing each year. These data enable us more precisely to examine performance and the extent of survivorship bias. In the aggregate, funds have underperformed benchmark portfolios both after management expenses and even gross of expenses. Survivorship bias appears to be more important than other studies have estimated. Moreover, while considerable performance persistence existed during the 1970s, there was no consistency in fund returns during the 1980s.     

New Zealand mutual funds: measuring performance and persistence in performance

The present study investigates the performance of New Zealand mutual funds using a survivorship‐bias controlled sample of 143 funds for the period of 1990–2003. Our overall results suggest that New Zealand mutual funds have not been able to provide out‐performance. Alphas for equity funds, both domestic and international, are insignificantly different from zero, whereas balanced funds underperform significantly. There is no evidence of timing abilities by the fund managers. In the short term, significant evidence of return persistence for all funds is observed. This persistence, however, is driven by ‘icy hands’ rather than ‘hot hands’. Finally, we find the risk‐adjusted performance for equity funds to be positively related to fund size and expense ratio and negatively related to load charges.     

Do Funds Make More When They Trade More?

We model fund turnover in the presence of time‐varying profit opportunities. Our model predicts a positive relation between an active fund's turnover and its subsequent benchmark‐adjusted return. We find such a relation for equity mutual funds. This time‐series relation between turnover and performance is stronger than the cross‐sectional relation, as the model predicts. Also as predicted, the turnover‐performance relation is stronger for funds trading less‐liquid stocks and funds likely to possess greater skill. Turnover is correlated across funds. The common component of turnover is positively correlated with proxies for stock mispricing. Turnover of similar funds helps predict a fund's performance.     

Persistence in Portuguese mutual fund performance

Recent evidence suggests that future performance is predictable from past performance, that is, funds with superior (inferior) performance in the past are likely to remain good (bad) performers in the future. This research addresses the persistence of mutual fund performance in a European regional market (the Portuguese equity fund market). Some of the problems in evaluating fund persistence are identified in the context of limited sample size and using the peer group median as a benchmark for contingency table analysis of performance persistence. The criteria for assessing performance persistence based on the contingency table methodology of repeated winners and losers are presented in terms of significance statistics, adjusted for small sample bias. The adjustments are accomplished through the Yates continuity correction and Fisher's exact p-value. The appropriateness of each criteria under different circumstances is also discussed. The analysis of the returns of all Portuguese domestic equity funds, since a representative number was established, shows some performance persistence (on a quarterly basis). The persistence, however, is reduced when the returns are controlled for the various dimensions of risk. Significant risk persistence has been documented. Furthermore, for more or less frequent intervals of measurement, the industry persistence is rejected, although individual funds exhibit superior/inferior performance.     

Portfolio concentration and fund manager performance

This research examines the relationships among portfolio concentration, fund manager skills, and fund performance in Taiwan's equity mutual fund industry, yielding several empirical findings as follows. First, after controlling for other factors, concentrated equity funds tend to have smaller net asset values, larger fund flows, higher turnover rates, and a younger age and prevail in smaller fund families. Second, concentrated fund managers buy and sell stocks more smartly based on economic trends or market factors than do diversified fund managers, i.e., they have better market‐timing abilities. Third, only partial evidence supports the premise that concentrated equity funds have better next‐quarter risk‐adjusted performances than do diversified ones, as these fund managers' skills positively correlate to risk‐adjusted fund performance. Fourth, fund managers who have better stock‐picking abilities and intensively invest in certain industries generally exhibit better Carhart's alpha in the next quarter than do other fund managers. Fifth, fund managers' stock‐picking abilities more closely relate to long‐term performance than do their market‐timing abilities. Lastly, positive performance persistence is much stronger than negative performance persistence, but concentrated funds do not have stronger performance persistence than do diversified funds.     

Winners and losers: German equity mutual funds

We investigate the performance of winners and losers for German equity mutual funds (1990–2009), using empirical order statistics. When using gross returns and the Fama–French three-factor model, the number of statistically significant positive alpha funds is zero but increases markedly when market timing variables are added. However, when using a ‘total performance’ measure (which incorporates both alpha and the contribution of market timing), the number of statistically significant winner funds falls to zero. The latter is consistent with the bias in estimated alphas in the presence of market timing. We also find that many poorly performing funds are unskilled rather than unlucky.     

Luck versus Skill in the Cross‐Section of Mutual Fund Returns

The aggregate portfolio of actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds is close to the market portfolio, but the high costs of active management show up intact as lower returns to investors. Bootstrap simulations suggest that few funds produce benchmark‐adjusted expected returns sufficient to cover their costs. If we add back the costs in fund expense ratios, there is evidence of inferior and superior performance (nonzero true α) in the extreme tails of the cross‐section of mutual fund α estimates.     

Benchmarking benchmarks: measuring characteristic selectivity using portfolio holdings data

This study proposes methodological adjustments to the widely adopted performance benchmarking methodology of Daniel et al. (1997 ) as a means of improving the precision of alpha measurement for active equity fund managers. We achieve this by considering the monthly updating of characteristic benchmarks and to ensure neutrality to the Standard & Poor's/Australian Stock Exchange 300 index. Applying this benchmark to a representative sample of active Australian equity funds and simulated passive portfolios that mimic fund manager‐style characteristics, we find statistically different and lower tracking error compared with using the standard characteristic benchmark methodology. We also find evidence that the modified benchmark statistically infers an alpha closer to zero compared with the standard benchmark methodology. Our findings suggest that improved specifications of characteristic benchmarks represent better methods in quantifying fund manager skill.     

Performance persistence of international mutual funds

This study applies the “winner–winner, winner–loser” methodology developed by Brown and Goetzmann, Goetzmann and Ibbotson, and Malkiel to test for short-term performance persistence in international equity mutual funds over the 20-year period from 1977 to 1996. Persistence tests are applied to a database consisting of all international equity funds in existence during this period, varying from a low of 11 (1977) to a high of 473 (1996) funds, reflecting the extremely rapid growth of this asset class over the last 20 years. The authors are not aware of any other persistence studies of international equity funds. The results show statistically significant performance persistence for 1-year holding periods, but no persistence for 2-, 3- or 4-year periods. For 1-year periods, overall, performance persistence is statistically significant at the .001 level. This leads to the conclusion that international equity mutual funds exhibit strong performance persistence for short-term (1-year holding periods), but persistence generally fades after the first year. These results are generally consistent with results found by other researchers using this methodology. Survivorship bias is a concern in virtually all time series studies of mutual fund returns. This bias is minimal in this study because each new fund is added to the database, merging funds continue to be included and adjustments are made for funds that cease operations. The only bias is that if any fund closed and did not merge with an existing fund, that fund would not have returns to be included for the future periods. Only 28 funds ceased operations over the 20-year period during which 490 new funds were introduced.     

Performance evaluation and self-designated benchmark indexes in the mutual fund industry

Almost one-third of actively managed, diversified U.S. equity mutual funds specify a size and value/growth benchmark index in the fund prospectus that does not match the fund's actual style. Nevertheless, these “mismatched” benchmarks matter to fund investors. Performance relative to the specified benchmark is a significant determinant of a fund's subsequent cash inflows, even controlling for performance measures that better capture the fund's style. These incremental flows appear unlikely to be rational responses to abnormal returns. The evidence is consistent with the notion that mismatched self-designated benchmarks result from strategic fund behavior driven by the incentive to improve flows.     

Active management, fund size, and bond mutual fund returns

Conventional wisdom holds that bonds are relatively homogenous investments compared to equities. Consequently, factors that explain variation in returns among bond mutual funds may differ in magnitude from those for equity mutual funds. In this study, a time-series cross-sectional analysis is employed to investigate the relationship between a bond fund's risk-adjusted return and specific fund attributes. Results indicate that a bond fund's past performance does not predict future performance and that bond fund managers are generally ineffective at increasing risk-adjusted returns. However, unlike equity mutual funds, bond mutual funds do appear to enjoy economies of scale.     

Mutual Fund Performance: Evidence from the UK

This paper uses a large sample containing the complete returnhistories of 2300UK openended mutual funds over a 23-year periodto measure fund performance. We find some evidence of underperformanceon a risk-adjusted basis by the average fund manager, persistenceofperformance and the existence of a substantial survivor bias.Similar findings have been reported for US equity mutual funds.New findings not previously documented for other markets includeevidence that mutual fund performance varies substantially acrossdifferent asset categories, especially foreign asset categories.We also identify some new patterns in performance related tothe funds' distance from their inception and termination dates:underperformance intensifies as the fund termination date approaches,while, in contrast, there is some evidence that funds (weakly)outperform during their first year of existence.     

Mutual Fund Performance: Evidence from the UK

This paper uses a large sample containing the complete return histories of 2300 UK open-ended mutual funds over a 23-year period to measure fund performance. We find some evidence of underperformance on a risk-adjusted basis by the average fund manager, persistence of performance and the existence of a substantial survivor bias. Similar findings have been reported for US equity mutual funds. New findings not previously documented for other markets include evidence that mutual fund performance varies substantially across different asset categories, especially foreign asset categories. We also identify some new patterns in performance related to the funds' distance from their inception and termination dates: underperformance intensifies as the fund termination date approaches, while, in contrast, there is some evidence that funds (weakly) outperform during their first year of existence.