IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/finmar/v27y2018i2p49-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A skeptical appraisal of the bootstrap approach in fund performance evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Huazhu Zhang
  • Cheng Yan

Abstract

It has become standard practice in the fund performance evaluation literature to use the bootstrap approach to distinguish “skills” from “luck”, while its reliability has not been subject to rigorous statistical analysis. This paper reviews and critiques the bootstrap schemes used in the literature, and provides a simulation analysis of the validity and reliability of the bootstrap approach by applying it to evaluating the performance of hypothetical funds under various assumptions. We argue that this approach can be misleading, regardless of using alpha estimates or their t‐statistics. While alternative bootstrap schemes can result in improvements, they are not foolproof either. The case can be worse if the benchmark model is misspecified. It is therefore only with caution that we can use the bootstrap approach to evaluate the performance of funds and we offer some suggestions for improving it.

Suggested Citation

  • Huazhu Zhang & Cheng Yan, 2018. "A skeptical appraisal of the bootstrap approach in fund performance evaluation," Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 49-86, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:finmar:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:49-86
    DOI: 10.1111/fmii.12093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/fmii.12093
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/fmii.12093?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
    ---><---

    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:wly:finmar:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:49-86. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.