In response to the many issues raised by Altman and Eisenbeis (A&E) [2], we will use their three-part outline. Before turning to their comments, however, we would like to take this opportunity to correct a typo in footnote 10 from our original paper [4]. The denominator of the formula is incorrect as shown, and should be .

In recent years the application of discriminant analysis to two-category (dichotomous) classification problems in empirical financial research has substantially increased. However, these studies have given relatively little attention to design and interpretation difficulties associated with discriminant analysis. Consequently, the conclusions and generalizations that can be drawn from such studies are frequently tenuous and questionable. This paper's purpose is to discuss the methodology of discriminant analysis. While the paper is oriented toward financial applications of discriminant analysis, our discussion is not peculiar to finance. Furthermore, many of the methodological issues we address are relevant to the general problem of developing and testing dichotomous classification models and arise whether model developing is by discriminant analysis or some other method.

Previous empirical studies of mutual fund performance relative to market performance were conducted using two- and three-moment analysis. This study has applied first-, second-, and third-degree stochastic dominance principles to investigate the same question. Our results support the earlier Sharpe study and oppose the recent Arditti work. From the investor's standpoint, mutual fund performance was inferior to market performance over the period 1954–1963.

O. Maurice Joy, Robert H. Litzenberger, Richard W. McEnally, The Adjustment of Stock Prices to Announcements of Unanticipated Changes in Quarterly Earnings, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 207-225