Journal of Financial Services Research

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 67–89 | Cite as

Investor Heterogeneity and the Cross-section of U.K. Investment Trust Performance

  • Jonathan Fletcher
  • Andrew Marshall


We use the upper and lower bounds derived by Ferson and Lin (2010) to examine the impact of investor heterogeneity on the performance of U.K. investment trusts relative to alternative linear factor models. We find using the upper bounds that investor heterogeneity has an important impact for nearly all investment trusts. The upper bounds are large in economic terms and significantly different from zero. We find no evidence of any trusts where all investors agree on the sign of performance beyond what we expect by chance. Using the lower bound, we find that trusts with a larger disagreement about trust performance have a weaker relation between the trust premium and past Net Asset Value (NAV) performance.


Fund performance Investor heterogeneity Investment trusts 

JEL Classification

G11 G12 


  1. Ahn DH, Cao HH, Chretien S (2009) Portfolio performance measurement: A no arbitrage bounds approach. European Financial Management 15:298–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragon G, Ferson WE (2008) Portfolio performance evaluation. Foundations and Trends in Finance 2:83–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bal Y, Leger LA (1996) The performance of U.K. investment trusts. Services Industry Journal 16:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangassa K (1999) Performance of U.K. investment trusts 1980–1994. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 26:1141–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berk JB, Stanton R (2007) Managerial ability, compensation, and the closed-end fund discount. Journal of Finance 62:529–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown SJ, Goetzmann WN, Ibbotson R, Ross SA (1992) Survivorship bias in performance studies. Review of Financial Studies 5:553–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carhart MM (1997) Persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance 52:57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carhart MM, Carpenter JN, Lynch AW, Musto DK (2002) Mutual fund survivorship. Review of Financial Studies 15:1439–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Z, Knez PJ (1996) Portfolio performance measurement: Theory and applications. Review of Financial Studies 9:511–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherkes M, Sagi J, Stanton R (2009) A liquidity-based theory of closed-end funds. Review of Financial Studies 22:257–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cochrane JH (2005) Asset pricing: Revised edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochrane JH, Saa-Requejo J (2000) Beyond arbitrage: Good-deal asset pricing bounds in incomplete markets. Journal of Political Economy 108:79–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connor G, Korajczyk RA (1986) Performance measurement with the arbitrage pricing theory: A new framework for analysis. Journal of Financial Economics 15:373–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cremers, M., Petajisto, A. and E. Zitzewitz, 2012, Should benchmark indices have alpha? Revisiting performance evaluation, Critical Finance Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Cuthbertson K, Nitzsche D, O’Sullivan N (2008) Mutual fund performance: Skill or luck? Journal of Empirical Finance 15:613–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Da, Z. and H. Yun, 2010, Electricity consumption and asset prices, Working Paper, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  17. Dimson, E. and C. Minio-Paluello, 2001, The closed-end fund discount and performance persistence, Working Paper, London Business School.Google Scholar
  18. Dimson, E. and C. Minio-Paluello, 2002, The closed-end fund discount, Research Monograph, CFA Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Elton E, Gruber MJ, Busse J (1988) Do investors care about sentiment? Journal of Business 71:477–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33:3–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fama EF, French KR (2010) Luck versus skill in the cross section of mutual fund returns. Journal of Finance 65:1915–1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fama EF, MacBeth JD (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 71:607–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferson WE (2010) Investment performance evaluation. Annual Review of Financial Economics 2:207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferson, W.E., 2012, Investment performance: A review and synthesis, In Constantinides, G.M., Harris, M., and R. Stultz (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  25. Ferson, W.E. and J. Lin, 2010, Alpha and performance measurement: The effect of investor heterogeneity, Working Paper, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  26. Ferson WE, Siegel AF (2003) Stochastic discount factor bounds with conditioning information. Review of Financial Studies 16:567–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferson WE, Siegel AF (2009) Testing portfolio efficiency with conditioning information. Review of Financial Studies 22:2735–2758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher J, Forbes D (2002) U.K. unit trust performance: Does it matter which benchmark or measure is used. Journal of Financial Services Research 21:195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fletcher, J. and A.P. Marshall, 2012, Evaluating U.K. investment trust performance using no arbitrage bounds, Working Paper, University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
  30. Griffin JM (2002) Are the Fama and French factors global or country-specific? Review of Financial Studies 15:783–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grinblatt M, Titman S (1994) A study of monthly mutual fund returns and performance evaluation techniques. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29:419–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen LP, Jagannathan R (1991) Implications of security market data for models of dynamic economies. Journal of Political Economy 99:225–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansen LP, Richard SFR (1987) The role of conditioning information in deducing testable restrictions implied by dynamic asset pricing models. Econometrica 55:587–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison M, Kreps D (1979) Martingales and arbitrage in multi-period securities markets. Journal of Economic Theory 20:381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen MC (1968) The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964. Journal of Finance 23:389–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khorana, A.J., Servaes, H. and L. Wedge, 2009, Portfolio manager ownership and the pricing of closed-end funds, Working Paper, London Business School.Google Scholar
  37. Kosowski R, Timmerman A, Wermers R, White H (2006) Can mutual fund “stars” really pick stocks? New evidence from a bootstrap analysis. Journal of Finance 61:2551–2596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehmann BN, Modest DM (1987) Mutual fund performance evaluation: A comparison of benchmarks and benchmark comparisons. Journal of Finance 42:233–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lettau M, Ludvigson SC (2010) Measuring and modeling variation in the risk-return tradeoff. In: Ait-Sahalia Y, Hansen LP (eds) Handbook of Financial Econometrics. Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, pp 618–690Google Scholar
  40. Linnainmaa, J.T., 2012, Reverse survivorship bias, Journal of Finance, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  41. Malkiel BG (1977) The valuation of closed-end investment-company shares. Journal of Finance 32:847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newey WK, West KD (1994) Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation. Review of Economic Studies 61:631–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramadorai T (2012) The secondary market for hedge funds and the closed hedge fund premium. Journal of Finance 67:479–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ross SA (1978) A simple approach to the valuation of risky streams. Journal of Business 51:153–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and FinanceUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations