Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

The Investment Performance of U.S. Equity Pension Fund Managers: An Empirical Investigation

T. Daniel Coggin, Frank J. Fabozzi and Shafiqur Rahman
The Journal of Finance
Vol. 48, No. 3, Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association: Anaheim, California January 5-7, 1993 (Jul., 1993), pp. 1039-1055
Published by: Wiley for the American Finance Association
DOI: 10.2307/2329025
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2329025
Page Count: 17
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($33.95)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Investment Performance of U.S. Equity Pension Fund Managers: An Empirical Investigation
Preview not available

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical examination of the selectivity and market timing performance of a sample of U.S. equity pension fund managers. Regardless of the choice of benchmark portfolio or estimation model, the average selectivity measure is positive and the average timing measure is negative. However both selectivity and timing appear to be somewhat sensitive to the choice of a benchmark when managers are classified by investment style. Meta-analysis revealed some real variation around the mean values for each measure. The 80 percent probability intervals for selectivity revealed that the best managers produced substantial risk-adjusted excess returns. We also found a negative correlation between selectivity and timing, but we argue that the observed negative correlation in our data is largely an artifact of negatively correlated sampling errors for the two estimates.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1039
    1039
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1040
    1040
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1041
    1041
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1042
    1042
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1043
    1043
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1044
    1044
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1045
    1045
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1046
    1046
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1047
    1047
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1048
    1048
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1049
    1049
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1050
    1050
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1051
    1051
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1052
    1052
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1053
    1053
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1054
    1054
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1055
    1055