基准共同基金alpha

IF 1.1 Q4 BUSINESS
Qiang Bu
{"title":"基准共同基金alpha","authors":"Qiang Bu","doi":"10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose - The standard market models assume that all investors are rational with the same level of risk aversion, whereas investors in the real world are neither rational nor homogeneous. This contrast makes these models inappropriate for evaluating manager skill. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bridge the gap between model assumption and fund investment practice. Design/methodology/approach - This study proposes a series of modified models using the excess return of peer funds to estimate fund alpha. In these models, the market excess return in the standard market models is replaced with the average excess return of bootstrapped funds. In addition, the author examines the reasons for the difference between the modified models and the standard models. Findings - The modified models better explain the variation of fund returns, and they exhibit that a considerably higher percentage of funds can earn positive alpha, thus the skill of fund managers is underestimated based on the standard market models. Originality/value - The proposed models provide a more reliable method for investors to identify skilled fund managers, and they can also serve as an objective benchmark in evaluating fund performance and in designing manager compensation packages.","PeriodicalId":44116,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Business","volume":"580 1","pages":"227-239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking mutual fund alpha\",\"authors\":\"Qiang Bu\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose - The standard market models assume that all investors are rational with the same level of risk aversion, whereas investors in the real world are neither rational nor homogeneous. This contrast makes these models inappropriate for evaluating manager skill. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bridge the gap between model assumption and fund investment practice. Design/methodology/approach - This study proposes a series of modified models using the excess return of peer funds to estimate fund alpha. In these models, the market excess return in the standard market models is replaced with the average excess return of bootstrapped funds. In addition, the author examines the reasons for the difference between the modified models and the standard models. Findings - The modified models better explain the variation of fund returns, and they exhibit that a considerably higher percentage of funds can earn positive alpha, thus the skill of fund managers is underestimated based on the standard market models. Originality/value - The proposed models provide a more reliable method for investors to identify skilled fund managers, and they can also serve as an objective benchmark in evaluating fund performance and in designing manager compensation packages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Business\",\"volume\":\"580 1\",\"pages\":\"227-239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Business\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-01-2016-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的——标准市场模型假设所有投资者都是理性的,风险厌恶程度相同,而现实世界中的投资者既不理性也不同质。这种对比使得这些模型不适合用于评估管理者的技能。本文的目的是试图弥合模型假设与基金投资实践之间的差距。设计/方法/方法-本研究提出了一系列修正模型,使用同行基金的超额回报来估计基金alpha。在这些模型中,将标准市场模型中的市场超额收益替换为自举基金的平均超额收益。此外,本文还分析了修正模型与标准模型存在差异的原因。修正后的模型更好地解释了基金收益的变化,它们表明相当高比例的基金可以获得正alpha,因此基金经理的技能被低估了基于标准市场模型。原创性/价值-提出的模型为投资者识别熟练的基金经理提供了更可靠的方法,也可以作为评估基金业绩和设计基金经理薪酬方案的客观基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benchmarking mutual fund alpha
Purpose - The standard market models assume that all investors are rational with the same level of risk aversion, whereas investors in the real world are neither rational nor homogeneous. This contrast makes these models inappropriate for evaluating manager skill. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to bridge the gap between model assumption and fund investment practice. Design/methodology/approach - This study proposes a series of modified models using the excess return of peer funds to estimate fund alpha. In these models, the market excess return in the standard market models is replaced with the average excess return of bootstrapped funds. In addition, the author examines the reasons for the difference between the modified models and the standard models. Findings - The modified models better explain the variation of fund returns, and they exhibit that a considerably higher percentage of funds can earn positive alpha, thus the skill of fund managers is underestimated based on the standard market models. Originality/value - The proposed models provide a more reliable method for investors to identify skilled fund managers, and they can also serve as an objective benchmark in evaluating fund performance and in designing manager compensation packages.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
×
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