Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:53:03.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bias in Composite Performance Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Robert C. Klemkosky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the past decade, considerable progress has been made in measuring ex post portfolio performance. The two parameter risk-return dimension of investment performance as pioneered by Markowitz has been reduced to a single parameter which incorporates measures of both risk and return. Several different but related one-parameter measures of performance have been developed, notably by Sharpe [8], Treynor [11], and Jensen [3], and are commonly referred to as composite performance measures. Theoretically, the composite measures allow portfolios with different risks and returns to be compared directly.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , June 1973 , pp. 505 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Bank Administration Institute. Measuring the Investment Performance of Pension Funds. Park Ridge, Ill., 1968. A supplement. Risk and the Evaluation of Pension Fund Portfolio, was written by Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
[2]Friend, Irwin, and Blume, Marshall. “Measurement of Portfolio Performance Under Uncertainty.” American Economic Review, vol. 60 (September 1970), pp. 561–575.Google Scholar
[3]Jensen, Michael. “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964.” Journal of Finance, vol. 23 (May 1968), pp. 389–416.Google Scholar
[4]Lintner, John. “Security Prices, Risk and Maximal Gains From Diversification.” Journal of Finance, vol. 20 (December 1965), pp. 587–612.Google Scholar
[5]Markowitz, Harry M.Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1959.Google Scholar
[6] Securities and Exchange Commission. Institutional Investor Study, (8 vols.). H. D. 64, 92th Congress, 1st Session, 1971.Google Scholar
[7]Sharpe, William F. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, vol. 19 (September 1964), pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
[8]Sharpe, William F. “Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Business, vol. 39, Part 2 (January 1966), pp. 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Smith, Keith V., and Tito, Dennis A.. “Risk-Return Measures of Ex-Post Portfolio Performance.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 4 (December 1969), pp. 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Treynor, Jack L. “Toward a Theory of Market Value of Risky Assets.” Unpublished manuscript (1961).Google Scholar
[11]Sharpe, William F. “How to Rate Management of Investment Funds.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 43 (January–February 1965), pp. 63–75.Google Scholar