交易所交易基金的表现

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
David Blitz, M. Vidojevic
{"title":"交易所交易基金的表现","authors":"David Blitz, M. Vidojevic","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3458275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are commonly regarded as an efficient, low-cost alternative to actively managed mutual funds, yet their perceived superiority is largely anecdotal. This article evaluates the performance of a comprehensive, survivorship-bias-free sample of US equity ETFs following the approach that has been commonly used to evaluate the performance of actively managed mutual funds. The authors find that ETFs have collectively lagged the market by an amount similar to the widely documented underperformance of active mutual funds. They perform textual and regression-based analysis to identify factor ETFs and show that most of these have also failed to beat the market. They conclude that from a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data. TOPICS: Factor-based models, mutual fund performance, passive strategies, exchange-traded funds and applications Key Findings ▪ ETFs have collectively lagged the market by about the same amount as active mutual funds. ▪ Most smart beta ETFs have also failed to beat the market. ▪ From a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data.","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":"23 1","pages":"81 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Performance of Exchange-Traded Funds\",\"authors\":\"David Blitz, M. Vidojevic\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3458275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are commonly regarded as an efficient, low-cost alternative to actively managed mutual funds, yet their perceived superiority is largely anecdotal. This article evaluates the performance of a comprehensive, survivorship-bias-free sample of US equity ETFs following the approach that has been commonly used to evaluate the performance of actively managed mutual funds. The authors find that ETFs have collectively lagged the market by an amount similar to the widely documented underperformance of active mutual funds. They perform textual and regression-based analysis to identify factor ETFs and show that most of these have also failed to beat the market. They conclude that from a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data. TOPICS: Factor-based models, mutual fund performance, passive strategies, exchange-traded funds and applications Key Findings ▪ ETFs have collectively lagged the market by about the same amount as active mutual funds. ▪ Most smart beta ETFs have also failed to beat the market. ▪ From a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"81 - 99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3458275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3458275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交易所交易基金(ETF)通常被认为是积极管理的共同基金的一种高效、低成本的替代品,但它们的优势在很大程度上是轶事。本文采用通常用于评估主动管理共同基金业绩的方法,评估了一个全面的、无生存偏差的美国股票ETF样本的业绩。作者发现,ETF总体上落后于市场的程度与广泛记录的活跃共同基金表现不佳的程度相似。他们进行了基于文本和回归的分析,以确定因子ETF,并表明其中大多数也未能击败市场。他们得出的结论是,从纯粹的业绩角度来看,ETF的吸引力在数据中几乎没有得到支持。主题:基于因子的模型、共同基金业绩、被动策略、交易所交易基金和应用关键发现▪ ETF总体上落后于市场的数量与活跃的共同基金大致相同。▪ 大多数智能测试版ETF也未能击败市场。▪ 从纯粹的业绩角度来看,ETF的吸引力在数据中几乎没有得到支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Performance of Exchange-Traded Funds
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are commonly regarded as an efficient, low-cost alternative to actively managed mutual funds, yet their perceived superiority is largely anecdotal. This article evaluates the performance of a comprehensive, survivorship-bias-free sample of US equity ETFs following the approach that has been commonly used to evaluate the performance of actively managed mutual funds. The authors find that ETFs have collectively lagged the market by an amount similar to the widely documented underperformance of active mutual funds. They perform textual and regression-based analysis to identify factor ETFs and show that most of these have also failed to beat the market. They conclude that from a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data. TOPICS: Factor-based models, mutual fund performance, passive strategies, exchange-traded funds and applications Key Findings ▪ ETFs have collectively lagged the market by about the same amount as active mutual funds. ▪ Most smart beta ETFs have also failed to beat the market. ▪ From a pure performance perspective, the allure of ETFs finds little support in the data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信