IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/repmxx/v6y2000i2p153-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk and Return Perceptions of Institutional Investors

Author

Listed:
  • Elaine Worzala
  • G. Sirmans
  • Emily Zietz

Abstract

Executive Summary. This study examines the responses of a survey mailed to portfolio managers for large pension funds and insurers regarding their perceptions of the inherent risk and return of twenty investment choices. The purpose of the study is to determine whether large portfolio managers perceive the inherent risk of a specific asset to be consistent with the expected return for that investment vehicle. Results from a means difference test on responses indicate that these investors generally do not feel that the inherent risk of many assets is justified by the return expected for a particular asset. For many asset classes respondents indicate that they perceive an asset to have a greater inherent risk level than the expected return for that asset class. This indicates that investors may be applying different risk and return levels for various assets in their portfolio allocation processes. Findings could partially explain why actual portfolio allocations often do not follow theoretically suggested guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Elaine Worzala & G. Sirmans & Emily Zietz, 2000. "Risk and Return Perceptions of Institutional Investors," Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 153-166, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:repmxx:v:6:y:2000:i:2:p:153-166
    DOI: 10.1080/10835547.2000.12089600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10835547.2000.12089600
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10835547.2000.12089600?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:repmxx:v:6:y:2000:i:2:p:153-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/repm20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.