Title: Second Investment Course November 2005
1Second Investment Course November 2005
- Topic Six
- Measuring Superior Investment Performance
2Estimating the Expected Returns and Measuring
Superior Investment Performance
- We can use the concept of alpha to measure
superior investment performance - a (Actual Return) (Expected Return) Alpha
- In an efficient market, alpha should be zero for
all investments. That is, securities should, on
average, be priced so that the actual returns
they produce equal what you expect them to given
their risk levels. - Superior managers are defined as those investors
who can deliver consistently positive alphas
after accounting for investment costs - The challenge in measuring alpha is that we have
to have a model describing the expected return to
an investment. - Researchers typically use one of two models for
estimating expected returns - - Capital Asset Pricing Model
- - Multi-Factor Models (e.g., Fama-French
Three-Factor Model)
3Developing the Capital Asset Pricing Model
4Developing the Capital Asset Pricing Model (cont.)
5Using the SML in Performance Measurement An
Example
- Two investment advisors are comparing
performance. Over the last year, one averaged a
19 percent rate of return and the other a 16
percent rate of return. However, the beta of the
first investor was 1.5, whereas that of the
second was 1.0. - a. Can you tell which investor was a better
predictor of individual stocks (aside from the
issue of general movements in the market)? - b. If the T-bill rate were 6 percent and the
market return during the period were 14 percent,
which investor should be viewed as the superior
stock selector? - c. If the T-bill rate had been 3 percent and the
market return were 15 percent, would this change
your conclusion about the investors?
6Using the SML in Performance Measurement (cont.)
7Using CAPM to Estimate Expected Return Empresa
Nacional de Telecom
8Estimating Mutual Fund Betas FMAGX vs. GABAX
9Estimating Mutual Fund Betas FMAGX vs. GABAX
(cont.)
10Estimating Mutual Fund Betas FMAGX vs. GABAX
(cont.)
11The Fama-French Three-Factor Model
- The most popular multi-factor model currently
used in practice was suggested by economists
Eugene Fama and Ken French. Their model starts
with the single market portfolio-based risk
factor of the CAPM and supplements it with two
additional risk influences known to affect
security prices - - A firm size factor
- - A book-to-market factor
- Specifically, the Fama-French three-factor model
for estimating expected excess returns takes the
following form
12Estimating the Fama-French Three-Factor Return
Model FMAGX vs. GABAX
13Fama-French Three-Factor Return Model FMAGX vs.
GABAX (cont.)
14Fama-French Three-Factor Return Model FMAGX vs.
GABAX (cont.)
15Style Classification Implied by the Factor Model
Value
Growth
Large
Small
16Fund Style Classification by Morningstar
17Active vs. Passive Equity Portfolio Management
- The conventional wisdom held by many investment
analysts is that there is no benefit to active
portfolio management because - - The average active manager does not produce
returns that exceed those of the benchmark - - Active managers have trouble outperforming
their peers on a consistent basis - However, others feel that this is the wrong way
to look at the Active vs. Passive management
debate. Instead, investors should focus on ways
to - - Identifying those active managers who are most
likely to produce superior risk-adjusted return
performance over time - This discussion is based on research authored
jointly with Van Harlow of Fidelity Investments
titled - The Right Answer to the Wrong Question
- Identifying Superior Active Portfolio Management
18The Wrong Question
- Stylized Fact
- Most active mutual fund managers cannot
outperform the SP 500 index on a consistent
basis
19Fund Performance versus Style Rotation (Rolling
12 Month Returns)
Higher Small-Cap Returns
R2000-R1000
Percent Beating SP 500
Higher Large-Cap Returns
20The Wrong Question (cont.)
Stylized Fact Most active mutual fund managers
compete against the wrong benchmark
SP 500
Diversified Equity Mutual Funds
21Defining Superior Investment Performance
- Over time, the value added by a portfolio
manager can be measured by the difference between
the portfolios actual return and the return that
the portfolio was expected to produce. - This difference is usually referred to as the
portfolios alpha. - Alpha (Actual Return) (Expected Return)
22Measuring Expected Portfolio Performance
- In practice, there are three ways commonly used
to measure the return that was expected from a
portfolio investment - - Benchmark Portfolio Return
- Example SP 500 or Russell 1000 indexes for a
U.S. Large-Cap Blend fund manager, IPSA index for
Chilean equity manager - Pros Easy to identify Easy to observe
- Cons Hypothetical return ignoring taxes,
transaction costs, etc. May not be
representative of actual investment universe No
explicit risk adjustment -
- - Peer Group Comparison Return
- Example Median Return to all U.S. Small-Cap
Growth funds for a U.S. Small-Cap Growth fund
manager, Sistema fondo averages for Chilean AFP
managers - Pros Measures performance relative to managers
actual competition - Cons Difficult to identify precise peer group
Median manager may ignore large dispersion in
peer group universe Universe size disparities
across time and fund categories - - Return-Generating Model
- Example Single Risk-Factor Model (CAPM)
Multiple Risk-Factor Model (Fama-French
Three-Factor, Carhart Four-Factor) - Pros Calculates expected fund returns based on
an explicit estimate of fund risk Avoids
arbitrary investment style classifications - Cons No direct investment typically Subject to
model misspecification and factor measurement
problems Model estimation error
23The Wrong Question (Revisited)
- Stylized Fact
- Across all investment styles, the median
manager cannot produce positive risk-adjusted
returns (i.e., PALPHA using return model)
24The Right Answer
- When judging the quality of active fund managers,
the important question is not whether - The average fund manager beats the benchmark
- The median manager in a given peer group
produces a positive alpha - The proper question to ask is whether you can
select in advance those managers who can
consistently add value on a risk-adjusted basis - Does superior investment performance persist from
one period to the next and, if so, how can we
identify superior managers?
25Lessons from Prior Research
- Fund performance appears to persist over time
- Original View
- Managers with superior performance in one period
are equally likely to produce superior or
inferior performance in the next period - Current View
- Some evidence does support the notion that
investment performance persists from one period
to the next - The evidence is particularly strong that it is
poor performance that tends to persist (i.e.,
icy hands vs. hot hands) - Security characteristics, return momentum, and
fund style appear to influence fund performance - Security Characteristics
- After controlling for risk, portfolios containing
stocks with different market capitalizations,
price-earnings ratios, and price-book ratios
produce different returns - Funds with lower portfolio turnover and expense
ratios produce superior returns
26Lessons from Prior Research (cont.)
- Security characteristics, return momentum, and
fund style appear to influence fund performance
(cont.) - Fund Style Definitions
- After controlling for risk, funds with different
objectives and style mandates produce different
returns - Value funds generally outperform growth funds on
a risk-adjusted basis - Style Investing
- Fund managers make decisions as if they
participate in style-oriented return performance
tournaments - The consistency with which a fund manager
executes the portfolios investment style mandate
affects fund performance, in both up and down
markets - Active fund managers appear to possess genuine
investment skills - Stock-Picking Skills
- Some fund managers have security selection
abilities that add value to investors, even after
accounting for fund expenses - A sizeable minority of managers pick stocks well
enough to generate superior alphas that persist
over time
27Data and Methodology for Performance Analysis
- CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) US
Mutual Fund Database - Survivor-Bias Free database of monthly returns
for mutual funds for the period 1962-2003 - Screens
- Diversified domestic equity funds only
- Eliminate index funds
- Require 30 prior months of returns to be included
in the analysis on any given date - Assets greater than 1 million
- Period 1979 2003 in order to analyze
performance versus an index fund and have
sufficient number of mutual funds - Return-generating model
- Fama-French
- E(Rp) RF bmE(Rm) RF bsmlSML
bhmlHML - Style classification
- Map funds to Morningstar-type style categories
based on Fama-French SML and HML factor exposures
(LV, LB, LG, MV, MB, MG, SV, SB, SG)
28Methodology Fund Mapped by Style Group
29Methodology (cont.)
Evaluate Performance
Estimate Model
Time
3 Months (1 Month)
36 Months
- Use past 36 months of data to estimate model
parameters - Standardized data within each peer group on a
given date to allow for time-series and
cross-sectional pooling Brown, Harlow, and
Starks (JF, 1996) - Evaluate performance
- Use estimated model parameters to calculate
out-of-sample alphas based on factor returns from
the evaluation period - Roll the process forward one quarter (one month)
and estimate all parameters again, etc.
30Performance Analysis
Distributions of Out-of-Sample Future Alphas
(FALPHA) Quarterly Equally Weighted 1979-2003
31Time Series Analysis
Pooled Regressions Fund Characteristics versus
Future Alpha 1979-2003
32Cross-Sectional Analysis
- Use past 36 months of data to estimate model
parameters - Run a sequence of Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional
regressions of future performance against fund
characteristics and model parameters (alpha and
R2 ) - Average the coefficient estimates from
regressions across the entire sample period - T-statistics based on the time-series means of
the coefficients
33Cross-Sectional Performance Results
Fama-MacBeth Regressions Fund Characteristics
versus Future Alpha 1979-2003
34Logit Performance Analysis
Fund Characteristics versus a Positive Future
Alpha 1979-2003
35Probability of Finding a Superior Active Manager
- Probability of Future Positive 3-month Alpha
- Median Manager Controls for Turnover, Assets,
Diversify, and Volatility
36Probability of Finding a Superior Active Manager
(cont.)
- Probability of Future Positive 3-month Alpha
- Best Manager Controls for Turnover, Assets,
Diversify, and Volatility
37Portfolio Strategies Based on Active Manager
Search
Asset Weighted Alpha Deciles - Quarterly
Rebalance 1979-2003
38Portfolio Strategies (cont.)
Asset Weighted - Quarterly Rebalance Formation
Variables Separated by Upper and Lower Quartile
Values 1979-2003
39The Benefit of Selecting Good Managers and
Avoiding Bad Managers
40Implementing a Fund of Funds Strategy An
Example
Methodology
- Use past 9 months of daily data to estimate model
and in-sample alpha - Optimize portfolio based on an assumption of risk
aversion, i.e., risk-return tradeoff preference - Compute the performance of the portfolio over the
next three (one) months - Roll the process forward each quarter and
estimate all parameters again, etc.
41Fund of Funds Strategy
Fidelity Advisor Diversified Equity Fund Styles
(6/04)
42Fund of Funds Portfolio Strategy
Portfolio Weights Over Time
- Portfolio Characteristics
43Cumulative Returns versus SP 500
44Active vs. Passive Management Conclusions
- Both passive and active management can play a
role in an investors portfolio - Strong evidence for both positive and negative
performance persistence (i.e., alpha persistence) - Prior alpha is the most significant variable for
forecasting future alpha - Expense ratio, risk measures, turnover and assets
are also useful in forecasting future alpha - The existence of performance persistence provides
a reasonable opportunity to construct portfolios
that add value on a risk-adjusted basis