Benchmarking Money Manager Performance: Issues and Evidence
Academic and practitioner research yields a proliferation of methods using size and value/growth attributes or factors to evaluate portfolio performance. We assess the relative merits of several of the most widely-used procedures, including variants of matched-characteristic benchmark portfolios and time-series return regressions, by applying them to a sample of active money managers and passive indexes. Estimated abnormal returns display large variation across approaches. The benchmarks most widely used in academic research --- attribute-matched portfolios from independent sorts, the conventional three-factor time series model, and cross-sectional regressions of returns on stock characteristics --- have poor ability to track returns. Simple alterations are provided that improve the performance of the methods.
We thank Jason Karceski, Bhaskaran Swaminathan, seminar participants at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, National University of Singapore, University of Texas Austin for comments, and John Diderich, James Owens, Menno Vermeulen, and Simon Zhang for assistance with data.
Louis K. C. Chan & Stephen G. Dimmock & Josef Lakonishok, 2009. "Benchmarking Money Manager Performance: Issues and Evidence," Review of Financial Studies, Oxford University Press for Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(11), pages 4553-4599, November. citation courtesy of