In a standard four-factor framework, mutual fund return volatility is a reliable, persistent, and powerful predictor of future abnormal returns. However, the abnormal returns are eliminated by the addition of a “vol” anomaly factor contrasting returns on portfolios of low and high volatility stocks. Consistent with Novy-Marx (2014) and Fama and French (2014), the Fama and French (2015) profitability and investment factors are equally effective at eliminating the abnormal returns. Failure to account for the vol anomaly, either directly or indirectly, can lead to substantial mismeasurement of fund manager skill.

Abstract We introduce a new holdings-based procedure to identify whether a mutual fund has a benchmark discrepancy, which we define as a benchmark other than the prospectus benchmark best matching a fund’s investment strategy. We find that funds with a benchmark discrepancy tend to be riskier than their prospectus benchmarks indicate. As a result, the funds on average outperform their prospectus benchmarks, before further risk adjustments, despite underperforming the benchmarks that best match their portfolios.

The performance of corporate bond mutual funds tends to be estimated using models with limited empirical validation. We survey the literature to determine the models in use and develop a representative set of models. Testing that set of models, we find considerable variation in quality, with the most effective models sharing common traits. We recommend, among the tested models, the four-factor model proposed by Jones and Mo (2021). Regarding the stylized facts of corporate bond fund performance, our recommended model produces notable deviations from the prior literature and other models, including less evidence of positive alphas not attributable to luck.