Individual investors who hold common stocks directly pay a tremendous performance penalty for active trading. Of 66,465 households with accounts at a large discount broker during 1991 to 1996, those that trade most earn an annual return of 11.4 percent, while the market returns 17.9 percent. The average household earns an annual return of 16.4 percent, tilts its common stock investment toward high-beta, small, value stocks, and turns over 75 percent of its portfolio annually. Overconfidence can explain high trading levels and the resulting poor performance of individual investors. Our central message is that trading is hazardous to your wealth. The investor’s chief problem—and even his worst enemy—is likely to be himself. Benjamin Graham In 1996, approximately 47 percent of equity investments in the United States were held directly by households, 23 percent by pension funds, and 14 percent by mutual funds ~Securities Industry Fact Book, 1997!. Financial economists have extensively analyzed the return performance of equities managed by mutual funds. There is also a fair amount of research on the performance of equities managed by pension funds. Unfortunately, there is little research on the return performance of equities held directly by households, despite their large ownership of equities.

We develop a simple rational model of active portfolio management that provides a natural benchmark against which to evaluate observed relationship between returns and fund flows. Many effects widely regarded as anomalous are consistent with this simple explanation. In the model, investments with active managers do not outperform passive benchmarks because of the competitive market for capital provision, combined with decreasing returns to scale in active portfolio management. Consequently, past performance cannot be used to predict future returns, or to infer the average skill level of active managers. The lack of persistence in actively managed returns does not imply that differential ability across managers is nonexistent or unrewarded, that gathering information about performance is socially wasteful, or that chasing performance is pointless. A strong relationship between past performance and the flow of funds exists in our model: indeed, this is the market mechanism that ensures that no predictability in performance exists. Choosing parameters to match the flow-performance relationship and survivorship rates, we find these features of the data are consistent with the vast majority (80%) of active managers having at least

The authors acknowledge research support from the Duke Global Capital Markets Center and helpful comments from Howard Wohl, Stephen Brown, David Ravenscraft, and an anonymous referee on a previous draft. It is well known that the pro forma performance of a sample of investment funds contains biases. These biases are documented in Brown, Goetzmann, Ibbotson and Ross (1992) using mutual funds as subjects. The organization structure of hedge funds, being private and often offshore vehicles, makes data collection a much more onerous task. This amplifies the impact of performance measurement biases. This paper reviews these biases in hedge funds. We also propose using funds-of-hedge funds to measure aggregate hedge fund performance, based on the idea that the investment experience of hedge fund investors can be used to estimate the performance of hedge funds. I.

This article presents evidence on persistence in the relative investment performance of large, institutional equity managers. Similar to existing evidence for mutual funds, we find persistent performance concentrated in the managers with poor prior-period performance measures. A conditional approach, using time-varying measures of risk and abnormal performance, is better able to detect this persistence and to predict the future performance of the funds than are traditional methods.

Due to differences in financial sophistication and agency relationships, we posit that investors use different criteria to select portfolio managers in the retail mutual fund and fiduciary pension fund industry segments. We provide evidence on investors ’ manager selection criteria by estimating the relation between manager asset flow and performance. We find that pension fund clients use quantitatively sophisticated measures like Jensen’s alpha, tracking error, and outperformance of a market benchmark. Pension clients also punish poorly performing managers by withdrawing assets under management. In contrast, mutual fund investors use raw return performance and flock disproportionately to recent winners, but do not withdraw assets from recent losers. Mutual fund manager flow is significantly positively related to Jensen’s alpha, a seemingly anomalous result in light of a relatively unsophisticated mutual fund client base. We provide evidence, however, suggesting that this relation is driven by a high correlation between

We review extensive evidence about how psychological biases affect investor behavior and prices. Systematic mispricing probably causes substantial resource misallocation. We argue that limited attention and overconfidence cause investor credulity about the strategic incentives of informed market participants. However, individuals as political participants remain subject to the biases and self-interest they exhibit in private settings. Indeed, correcting contemporaneous market pricing errors is probably not government’s relative advantage. Government and private planners should establish rules ex ante to improve choices and efficiency, including disclosure, reporting, advertising, and default-option-setting regulations. Especially

anonymous referee and participants at the hedge fund conference at the Duke University and Issues in

Abstract not found

Abstract: We investigate the effect of scale on performance in the active money management industry. We first document that fund returns, both before and after fees and expenses, decline with lagged fund size, even after adjusting these returns by various performance benchmarks. We then explore a number of potential explanations for this relationship. We find that this relationship is most pronounced among funds that have to invest in small and illiquid stocks, which suggests that the adverse effects of scale are related to liquidity. Controlling for its size, a fund’s performance actually increases with the asset base of the other funds in the family that the fund belongs to. This suggests that scale need not be bad for fund returns depending on how the fund is organized. Finally, we explore the idea that scale erodes fund performance because of the interaction of liquidity and organizational diseconomies.

Using a data set on more than 300 UK pension funds' asset holdings, this paper provides a systematic investigation of the performance of managed portfolios across multiple asset classes. We find evidence of slow mean reversion in the funds' portfolio weights towards a common, time-varying strategic asset allocation. We also nd surprisingly little cross-sectional variation in the average ex post returns arising from the strategic asset allocation, market timing and security selection decisions of the fund managers. Strategic asset allocation accounts for most of the time-series variation in portfolio returns, while market timing and asset selection appear to have been far less important.