Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-bnl7t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T11:56:43.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Single and Multifactor Portfolio Performance Methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Nai-Fu Chen ,
Thomas E. Copeland  and
David Mayers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparison of single and multifactor portfolio performance methodologies using Value Line and size-ranked portfolios indicates that although both methodologies provide unbiased estimates of portfolio performance, there are systematic differences in the power of the two methodologies. The predictive power of the multifactor methodology is superior for well-diversified portfolios but inferior for less diversified portfolios.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1987 , pp. 401 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1987

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Ashley, R.; Granger, C. W. J.; and Schmalensee, R.. “Advertising and Aggregate Consumption: An Analysis of Casuality.” Econometrica, 48 (07 1980), 1152–1159.Google Scholar
[2]Brown, S., and Warner, J.. “Measuring Security Performance.” Journal of Financial Economics, 8 (09 1980), 205–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Brown, S., and Weinstein, M.. “The Use of Derived Factors in Event Studies.” Working paper, Univ. of Southern California (11 1983).Google Scholar
[4]Chen, N. “Some Empirical Tests of the Theory of Arbitrage Pricing.’ Journal of Finance, 38 (12 1983), 1393–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Copeland, T. E., and Mayers, D.. “The Value Line Enigma (1965–1978): A Case Study of Performance Evaluation Issues.” The Journal of Financial Economics, 10 (11 1982), 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Fama, E.; Fisher, L.; Jensen, M.; and Roll, R.. “The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information.” International Economic Review, 10 (02 1969), 1–21.Google Scholar
[7]Huberman, G. “Arbitrage Pricing Theory: A Simple Approach.” Journal of Economic Theory, 28 (10 1982), 183–191.Google Scholar
[8]King, B. “Market and Industry Factors in Stock Price Behavior.” Journal of Business, 39 (01 1966), 134–190.Google Scholar
[9]Reinganum, M. “The Arbitrage Pricing Theory: Some Empirical Results.” Journal of Finance, 36 (1981).Google Scholar
[10]Reinganum, M. “Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing: Empirical Anomalies Based on Earnings Yields and Market Value.” Journal of Financial Economics, 9 (03 1981), 19–46.Google Scholar
[11]Roll, R., and Ross, S.. “An Empirical Investigation of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory.” Journal of Finance, 35 (12 1980), 1073–1103.Google Scholar
[12]Roll, R., and Ross, S.. “Regulation, the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory.” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 112 (05 26, 1983), 22–28.Google Scholar
[13]Ross, S. A. “The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing.” The Journal of Economic Theory, 13 (12 1976), 343–362.Google Scholar
[14]Stickel, S. E., “The Effect of Value Line Investment Survey Rank Changes on Common Stock Prizes.” Journal of Financial Economics, 14 (03 1985), 121–143.Google Scholar
[15]Theil, H.Principles of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons (1971).Google Scholar
[16]The Value Line Investment Survey. Value Line, Inc., New York, NY (1965–1978).Google Scholar