This study examines the Morningstar rating system as a predictor of mutual fund performance for U.S. domestic equit funds. We also compare the predictive abilities of the Morningstar rating system with those of alternative predictors. The results indicate findings that are robust across different samples, ages and styles of funds, and performance measures. First, low ratings from Morningstar generally indicate relatively poor future performance. Second, there is little statistical evidence that Morningstar's highest-rated funds outperform the next-to-highest and median-rated funds. Third, Morningstar ratings, at best, do only slightly better than the alternative predictors in forecasting future fund performance.

Berk and Green (2004) make a theoretical argument that performance persistence should not exist since new money flows into well-performing mutual funds and there are diseconomies of scale, or because successful funds capture excess returns by raising fees. We find that performance prediction continues when we examine samples of larger and larger funds and that past performance predicts future performance for holding periods up to three years. Funds that outperform index funds of the same risk can be identified. We find that expense ratios are lower for large funds, and decrease as funds get larger or perform well.

[Mutual fund attrition can create problems for a researcher because funds that disappear tend to do so due to poor performance. In this article we estimate the size of the bias by tracking all funds that existed at the end of 1976. When a fund merges we calculate the return, taking into account the merger terms. This allows a precise estimate of survivorship bias. In addition, we examine characteristics of both mutual funds that merge and their partner funds. Estimates of survivorship bias over different horizons and using different models to evaluate performance are provided.]

As a result of poor asset allocation decisions by 401(k) participants, 72% of all plans now offer target date funds, and participants heavily invest in them. Here, we study the characteristics and performance of TDFs, providing a unique view by employing data on TDFs holdings. We show that additional expenses charged by TDFs are largely offset by the low-cost share classes they hold, not normally open to their investors. Additionally, TDFs are very active in their allocation decisions and increasingly bet on nonstandard asset classes. However, TDFs do not earn alpha from timing or their selection of individual assets. (JEL G11. G23.)

This is the first study to examine both how well plan administrators select funds for 401(k) plans and how participants react to plan administrator decisions. We find that, on average, administrators select funds that outperform randomly selected funds of the same type although they do not outperform index funds of the same type. When administrators change offerings, they choose funds that did well in the past, but, after the change, added funds do no better than dropped funds. Plan participants in aggregate change their allocation decisions in a way that accentuates the changes in allocation caused by returns. The change in allocation due to the investment of new money and interfund transfers is about the same size, and in the same direction, as the change due to returns. Participant allocations in aggregate do no better than naïve allocation rules, such as equal investment in each offering.

Abstract Despite the size and importance of separately managed accounts (SMAs) and collective investment trusts, their characteristics and performance have not been studied in detail. We show that separate account performance is similar to that of index funds and superior to that of actively managed mutual funds. Management supplies a benchmark for each separate account. When the management-selected benchmark is used to measure performance, performance is significantly overstated. Despite this, investors react to differences in performance from the management-preferred benchmark in choosing among SMAs. Finally we find variables that explain both the cross section of alphas and the cross section of cash flows.

Abstract In this paper, the authors use monthly holdings to study timing ability. These data differ from holdings data used in previous studies in that the authors’ data have a higher frequency and include a full range of securities, not just traded equities. Using a one-index model, the authors find, as do two recent studies, that management appears to have positive and statistically significant timing ability. When a multiindex model is used, the authors show that timing decisions do not result in an increase in performance, whether timing is measured using conditional or unconditional sensitivities. The authors show that sector rotation decisions with respect to high-tech stocks are a major contribution to negative timing.

Edwin J. Elton, Martin J. Gruber, Christopher R. Blake; Common Factors in Active and Passive Portfolios, European Finance Review, Volume 3, Issue 1, 1 Janu

In this article, the authors develop relative pricing (APT) models that are successful in explaining expected returns in the bond market. They utilize indexes as well as unanticipated changes in economic variables as factors driving security returns. An innovation in this article is the measurement of the economic factors as changes in forecasts. The return indexes are the most important variables in explaining the time series of returns. However the addition of the economic variables leads to a large improvement in the explanation of the cross-section of expected returns. The authors utilize their relative pricing models to examine the performance of bond funds.

Abstract In this paper we show that selecting mutual funds using alpha computed from a fund’s holdings and security betas produces better future alphas than selecting funds using alpha computed from a time-series regression on fund returns. This is true whether future alphas are computed using holdings and security betas or a time-series regression on fund returns. Furthermore, we show that the more frequently the holdings data are available, the greater the benefit. This has major implications for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent ruling on the frequency of holdings disclosure and the information plan sponsors should collect from portfolio managers. We also explore the effect of conditioning betas on macroeconomic variables as suggested by Ferson and Schadt (1996) to identify superior-performing mutual funds as well as the alternative way of employing holdings data proposed by Grinblatt and Titman (1993).