New evidence on mutual fund performance: a comparison of alternative bootstrap methods

David Blake, Tristan Caulfield, Christos Ioannidis, Ian Tonks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

We compare two bootstrap methods for assessing mutual fund performance. The first produces narrow confidence intervals due to pooling over time, whereas the second produces wider confidence intervals because it preserves the cross correlation of fund returns. We then show that the average U.K. equity mutual fund manager is unable to deliver outperformance net of fees under either bootstrap. Gross of fees, 95% of fund managers on the basis of the first bootstrap and all fund managers on the basis of the second bootstrap fail to outperform the luck distribution of gross returns.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1279-1299
JournalJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
Volume52
Issue number3
Early online date8 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2017

Bibliographical note

This article has been published in a revised form in Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000229. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2017.

Funding: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Business Fellow at the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) in 2009 (RES-186-27-0014).

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'New evidence on mutual fund performance: a comparison of alternative bootstrap methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this