Advertisement

Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 28, Issue 1–2, pp 71–86 | Cite as

Performance measurement and best-practice benchmarking of mutual funds: combining stochastic dominance criteria with data envelopment analysis

  • Timo Kuosmanen
Article

Abstract

We propose a method for mutual fund performance measurement and best-practice benchmarking, which endogenously identifies a dominating benchmark portfolio for each evaluated mutual fund. Dominating benchmarks provide information about efficiency improvement potential as well as portfolio strategies for achieving them. Portfolio diversification possibilities are accounts for by using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Portfolio risk is accounted for in terms of the full return distribution by utilizing Stochastic Dominance (SD) criteria. The approach is illustrated by an application to US based environmentally responsible mutual funds.

Keywords

Activity analysis Diversification Fund management Portfolio choice Risk management 

JEL Classifications

G11 D81 C61 

References

  1. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 39:1261–1264Google Scholar
  2. Ansell J, Moles P, Smart A (2003) Does benchmarking help? Int Trans Oper Res 10:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey JV (1992) Are manager universes acceptable performance benchmarks? J Portf Manage 8(3):9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30(9):1078–1092Google Scholar
  5. Basso A, Funari S (2001) A data envelopment analysis approach to measure the mutual fund performance. Euro J Oper Res 135:477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basso A, Funari S (2003) Measuring the performance of ethical mutual funds: a DEA approach. J Oper Res Soc 54(5):521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bawa VS, Lindenberg E, Rafsky L (1979) An algorithm to determine stochastic dominance admissible sets. Manage Sci 25(7):609–622Google Scholar
  8. Berger AN, Humphrey DB (1997) Efficiency of financial institutions: international survey and directions for future research. Euro J Oper Res 98:175–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berk JB (2000) Sorting out sorts. J Finance 55(1):407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black F, Jensen MC, Scholes M (1972) The capital asset pricing model: some empirical tests. In: Jensen MC (ed) Studies in the theory of capital markets. Praeger Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogetoft P (1997) DEA-based Yardstick competition: the optimality of best practice regulation. Ann Oper Res 73:277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briec W, Kerstens K, Lesourd J-B (2004) Nonparametric tests of portfolio investment efficiency: a shortage function generalization. J Optim Theory Appl 120(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown G, Davies D, Draper P (1992) Pension fund trustees and performance measurement. Manage Acc 4:38–44Google Scholar
  14. Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1998) Profit, directional distance functions, and nerlovian efficiency. J Optim Theory Appl 98(2):351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production frontiers. J Econom 30(1–2):91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Euro J Oper Res 2(6):429 – 444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke BE, Ryan AW (1994) Proper overseas benchmark: a critical choice. Pensions Invest 22:28–29Google Scholar
  18. Fama EF, French KR (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J Finance 47:427–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33:3–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J Stat Soc Ser A Gen 120 (3):253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishburn PC (1964) Decision and value theory. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Heikkinen V-P, Kuosmanen T (2003) Stochastic dominance portfolio analysis of forestry assets, chapter 14. In: Wesseler J, Weikard H-P, Weaver R (eds) Risk and uncertainty in environmental and natural resource economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen MC (1967) The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964. J Finance 23(2):389–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuosmanen T (2001) Stochastic dominance efficiency tests under diversification. Working Paper W-283, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuosmanen T (2004) Efficient diversification according to stochastic dominance criteria. Manage Sci 50(10):1390–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy H (1992) Stochastic dominance and expected utility: survey and analysis. Manage Sci 38(4):555–593Google Scholar
  27. Levy H (1998) Stochastic dominance: investment decision making under uncertainty. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Morey MR, Morey RC (1999) Mutual fund performance appraisals: a multi-horizon perspective with endogenous benchmarking. Omega 27(2):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murthi BPS, Choi YK, Desai P (1997) Efficiency of mutual funds and portfolio performance measurement. Euro J Oper Res 98:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson RD, Pope R (1991) Bootstrapping insights into empirical applications of stochastic dominance. Manage Sci 37:1182–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Post GT (2003) Empirical tests for stochastic dominance efficiency. J Finance 58(5):1905–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quirk J, Saposnik R (1962) Admissibility and measurable utility functions. Rev Econ Stud 29:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roll R (1978) Ambiguity when performance is measured by the security market line. J Finance 33:1051–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothschild M, Stiglitz JE (1970) Increasing Risk I: a definition. J Econ Theory 2:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheel H, Scholtes S (2003) Continuity of DEA efficiency measures. Oper Res 51(1):149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt P, Sickles RC (1984) Production frontiers and panel data. J Bus Econ Stat 4:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schueth S (2003) Socially responsible investing in the United States. J Bus Ethics 43:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simar L, Wilson PW (2000) Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: the state of the art. J Prod Anal 13:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thor CG (1996) Let’s clear up some confusion about benchmarking. J Qual Participat 19(4):88–90Google Scholar
  40. Varian H (1983) Non-parametric tests of models of investor behavior. J Financ Quant Anal 18:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Research UnitMTT Agrifood Research FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations