Search results

We highlight key assumptions implicit in the models used by academics conducting research on market efficiency. Most notably, many academics assume that investors can borrow unlimited amounts and construct long-short portfolios at zero cost. We relax these assumptions and examine the attractiveness of long-short strategies as stand-alone investments and as a part of a diversified portfolio. Our analysis illustrates that the key benefit of long-short investing is adding diversification to a portfolio beyond what the market provides. We show that as stand-alone investments, nontrivial risk remains in the “hedge” strategies and that the returns generally do not beat the market in a head-to-head contest. Our findings raise questions about the degree of inefficiency in anomaly studies because plausible measures of costs generally offset strategy returns. The ability to achieve greater diversification may be, but is not necessarily, due to market inefficiency. We also highlight the key role of the generally ignored but critically important short interest rebate and show that absent this rebate, the long-short strategies we examine generally yield insignificant returns.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the classification of the equity mutual fund depends on the performance measure used.

The sample for this study includes stock mutual funds for the USA, Europe and emerging market economies covering the period 2010 to 2020. Using more than 20 performance measures the results are compared using the Sharpe ratio as the reference.

The results show that performance measures based on absolute reward–risk ratios like Sortino, Treynor, etc. have similar rankings, because in general the numerator (mean excess return) is the same. However, when the authors employ other types of performance measures, results may be significantly different, especially in the case of metrics for “incremental returns”, i.e. alphas. Focussing on markets, their results show that choosing performance measures is more relevant for emerging markets.

The sample is only limited to the USA, Europe and the emerging market, and there are other performance metrics in the literature which have not been covered in this work.

The ordering of equity mutual funds depends on the measure used, specially if investors employ factor models to measure excess returns (alphas). Hence, policy formulation on disclosure of mutual fund performance should encourage the use of several metrics from different families. Investors must be aware of the different rankings made and the most appropriate metrics based on their preferences.

This paper focusses specifically on the effect that performance metrics have on relative fund performance. Previous studies have ignored alpha metrics to rank funds, which are commonly employed by investors. The authors’ study performs an analysis for three different markets considering the two main developed ones (the American and European equity markets), as well as the emerging one, largely ignored until now.

This paper aims to investigate the use of the bias ratio as a possible early indicator of financial fraud – specifically in the reporting of hedge fund returns. In the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, numerous hedge funds were liquidated and several cases of financial fraud exposed.

Risk-adjusted return metrics such as the Sharpe ratio and Value at Risk were used to raise suspicion for fraud. These metrics, however, assume distributional normality and thus have had limited success with hedge fund returns (a characteristic of which is highly skewed, non-normal return distributions).

Results indicate that potential fraud would have been detected in the early stages of the scheme’s life. Having demonstrated the credibility of the bias ratio, it was then applied to several indices and (anonymous) South African hedge funds. The results were used to demonstrate the ratio’s scope and robustness and draw attention to other metrics which could be used in conjunction with it. Results from these multiple sources could be used to justify further investigation.

The traditional metrics for performance evaluation (such as the Sharpe ratio), assume distributional normality and thus have had limited success with hedge fund returns (a characteristic of which is highly skewed, non-normal return distributions). The bias ratio, which does not rely on normally distributed returns, was applied to a known fraud case (Madoff’s Ponzi scheme).

The effectiveness of the bias ratio in demonstrating potential suspicious financial activity has been demonstrated.

The financial market has come under heightened scrutiny in the past decade (2005 – 2015) as a result of the fragile and uncertain economic milieu that still (2015) persists. Numerous risk and return measures have been used to evaluate hedge funds’ risk-adjusted performance, but many fail to account for non-normal return distributions exhibited by hedge funds. The bias ratio, however, has been demonstrated to effectively flag potentially fraudulent funds.

In order to provide an updated view on the drivers of German stock returns, the authors evaluate the relative performance of nine competing neoclassical asset pricing models in the German stock market between November 1991 and December 2021.

The authors conduct asymptotically valid tests of model comparison when the extent of model mispricing is gauged by the squared Sharpe ratio improvement measure of Barillas et al. (2020).

The study finds that the Fama and French six-factor model with both traditional and updated value factors emerges as the dominant model.

The authors shed new light on the drivers of German stock returns through an updated and extended period of analysis, wider range of potential models and utilization of valid asymptotic tests of model comparison when models are nonnested (Barillas et al., 2020).

Real estate investment has been generally accepted as a value-adding proposition for a portfolio investor. Such an impression is not only shared by investment professionals and financial advisors but also appears to be supported by an overwhelming amount of research in the academic literature. The benefits of adding real estate as an asset class to a well-diversified portfolio are usually attributed to the respectable risk-return profile of real estate investment together with the relatively low correlation between its returns and the returns of other financial assets. By using the regime-switching technique on an extensive historical dataset, we attempt to look for the statistical evidence for such a claim. Unfortunately, the empirical support for the claim is neither strong nor universal. We find that any statistically significant improvement in risk-adjusted return is very much limited to the bullish environment of the real estate market. In general, the diversification benefit is not found to be statistically significant unless investors are relatively risk averse. We also document a regime-switching behavior of real estate returns similar to those found in other financial assets. There are two distinct states of the real estate market. The low-return (high-return) state is characterized by its high (low) volatility and its high (low) correlations with the stock market returns. We find this kind of dynamic risk characteristics to play a crucial role in dictating the diversification benefit from real estate investment.

This paper aims to elaborate on the optimization of two particular cryptocurrency portfolios in a mean-variance framework. In general, cryptocurrencies can be classified to as coins and tokens where the first can be thought of as a medium of exchange and the latter accounts for security or utility tokens depending upon its design.

Against this backdrop, this empirical study distinguishes, in particular, between pure coin and token portfolios. Both portfolios are optimized by maximizing the Sharpe ratio and, subsequently, compared with alternative portfolio strategies.

The empirical findings demonstrate that the maximum utility portfolio of coins, with a risk aversion of λ = 10, outweighs alternative frameworks. The portfolios optimized by maximizing the Sharpe ratio for both coins and tokens indicate a rather poor performance. Testing the maximized utility for different levels of risk aversion confirms the findings of this empirical study and confers them more robustness.

Further investigation is strongly recommended as tokens represent a new phenomenon in the cryptocurrency universe, for which only a limited amount of data are available, which restricts the sampling. Furthermore, future study is to include more sophisticated optimization models using different constraints in portfolio creation.

In light of the persistently substantial volatility in cryptocurrency markets, the empirical findings assert that portfolio managers are advised to construct a global minimum variance portfolio. In the absence of sophisticated optimization models, private investors can invest according to the market values of cryptocurrencies. Despite minor differences in the risk and reward ratios of the portfolios tested, tokens tend to be more speculative, especially, if the Tether token is excluded, which may require enhanced supervision and investor protection by regulating authorities.

As the current literature investigates on diversification effects of blended cryptocurrency portfolios rather than making an explicit distinction, this paper reflects one of the first to explore the investability and role of diversifying coins and tokens using a classic Markowitz approach.

This study aims to examine the performance of environmental, social and governance (ESG) equity indices in Latin America (LA), evaluating their risk-return characteristics in comparison to conventional benchmark indices.

Using a quantitative empirical approach, the authors analyze ESG equity indices from Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia, employing metrics such as Sharpe, Sortino and Omega ratios to measure risk-adjusted returns. Regression analysis is employed to assess the replicability of ESG indices by benchmark indices. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to explore the potential increase in risk-adjusted returns when ESG equity indices are incorporated into portfolios.

The study addresses critical questions for investors: Can ESG indices outperform their benchmarks? Can these ESG indices be replicated by benchmark counterparts? Do ESG equity indices enhance portfolio diversification? The findings reveal that investing in ESG indices has the potential to enhance risk-adjusted returns and portfolio diversification.

While this study focuses on various LA economies, it’s important to note variations in currency and volatility.

For investors in LA, this study highlights the importance of considering ESG indices as part of their investment strategies. While not all ESG indices outperform conventional ones, some may improve diversification and risk-adjusted performance. Investors should carefully assess market-specific conditions and national factors when making investment decisions.

The primary contribution of this study is its focus on LA countries in the examination of diverse portfolios. The research provides valuable insights into the performance of ESG indices in this region compared to conventional benchmark indices. This approach addresses an important gap in the existing literature and offers a more comprehensive perspective on ESG investing and portfolio diversification.

Se examina el rendimiento de los índices-ESG en América Latina (AL), evaluando sus características de riesgo y retorno en comparación con los índices convencionales.

Utilizando un enfoque cuantitativo, analizamos los índices-ESG de Brasil, México, Chile, Perú y Colombia, empleando ratios de Sharpe, Sortino y Omega para medir los rendimientos ajustados al riesgo. Se utiliza análisis de regresión para evaluar la replicabilidad de los índices-ESG por parte de los índices de referencia. Se realizan simulaciones de Monte-Carlo para explorar el aumento en los rendimientos ajustados al riesgo cuando se incorporan los índices-ESG en las carteras.

El estudio aborda preguntas críticas: ¿Pueden los índices-ESG superar a sus índices de referencia? ¿Pueden estos índices-ESG ser replicados por sus contrapartes de referencia? ¿Mejoran los índices-ESG la diversificación de las carteras? Los hallazgos revelan que la inversión en índices-ESG tiene el potential de mejorar los rendimientos y la diversificación de las carteras de inversión.

Aunque este estudio se centra en diversas economías de AL, es importante tener en cuenta variaciones en moneda y volatilidad.

La principal contribución de este estudio radica en su enfoque en países de AL en el examen de carteras diversas; ofrece valiosos conocimientos sobre el rendimiento de los índices-ESG en esta región en comparación con los índices convencionales.

This study aims to empirically compare the performance of Islamic indices vis-à-vis to their conventional counterparts in India.

The performance of the Islamic and selected conventional indices is evaluated using various risk-adjusted performance measures such as Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, M-square (M²) ratio, information ratio, capital asset pricing model (CAPM), Fama-French three-factor model and Carhart four-factor model in India context. The period of study is from December 2006 to 2018.

The risk-adjusted performance measures based on the Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, information ratio, the M² ratio show that the return of Islamic indices provides slightly superior performance. However, performance investigated using CAPM, Fama-French and Carhart benchmarks produce a statistically insignificant differences in return of the Islamic and conventional benchmarks.

The Sharīʿah-compliant indices can provide a viable, ethical and alternative investment avenue for faith-based investors as it will not make them worse off in comparison to the conventional benchmarks. This also offers opportunity to conventional investors for portfolio diversification. The promotion of faith-based investment can serve as a tool for financial inclusion to attract a huge segment of Indian population in the formal financial system. The findings of the study suffer from the limitation of small sample size and empirical methods used.

This study contributes to the literature on the comparative performance of Islamic and conventional indices in general and emerging markets, in particular, using most recent data and covering a relatively long span of time. To the best of the knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study examining the performance of Islamic indices, using multiple Islamic indices and various risk-adjusted measures in the Indian context.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the impact of counterparty risk on the basis risk of industry loss warranties as well as on reinsurance with and without collateral under different dependence structures. The authors additionally compare the solvency and Sharpe ratio for different premium loadings and contract parameters.

The authors propose a model framework extension to account for the counterparty risk of risk transfer arrangements. Copulas are used to also take into account non-linear dependencies between risk factors, and Monte Carlo simulation is employed to derive numerical results and to conduct sensitivity analyses.

The authors show that the impact of counterparty risk is particularly pronounced for higher degrees of dependencies and tail dependent losses, i.e. in cases of basis risk levels that appear low if counterparty risk is not considered. With respect to counterparty risk management, the authors find that already partial collateralization limits counterparty and basis risk to more acceptable levels.

The study results are particularly relevant to practitioners, as insurers may not only underestimate the “true” basis risk of index-linked instruments, but also the effect of counterparty risk of reinsurance contracts along with the consequences for solvency and profitability.

The authors extend existing literature by allowing for the (partial) default of industry loss warranties and reinsurance under different dependence structures. Furthermore, the authors include profitability in addition to risk considerations. The interaction effects between counterparty risk and the basis risk of index-based alternative risk transfer instruments are largely unstudied, despite their considerable relevance in practice.