博碩士論文 etd-0323117-145921 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 吳政勳(Cheng-hsun Wu) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 財務管理學系研究所(Finance)
畢業學位 碩士(Master) 畢業時期 105學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 風險及基金主動性指標預測台灣境內基金績效表現
論文名稱(英) Riskiness and management style as predictors of Taiwan domestic mutual fund performance
檔案
  • etd-0323117-145921.pdf
  • 本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
    請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
    論文使用權限

    紙本論文:1 年後公開 (2018-06-23 公開)

    電子論文:使用者自訂權限:校內 1 年後公開、校外永不公開

    論文語文/頁數 英文/79
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5563 次,被下載 3 次
    摘要(中) 本研究主要目的在驗證影響台灣基金市場獲利的因子,應用新的績效表現評估指標Performance Index、投資領域經常使用的Sharpe Ratio以及主動性評估指標R2,每月依據指標高低實際建構基金投資組合。其中Performance Index及Sharpe Ratio依據過去文獻在期望報酬為負時並不適用,但仍能計算出指標數值,此二指標將分別用有限制和無限制兩種方法建構,故總共有五種指標。研究結果以上五種指標均能幫助我們區分基金的優劣。
    為求嚴謹,本研究再應用四因子迴歸模型判斷各指標之最佳的投資組合是否能取得異常報酬,進一步驗證Performance Index及Sharpe Ratio均能取得異常報酬,R2投組則無法獲得異常報酬,表示台灣主動型基金並無顯著良好的獲利能力。
    後續比較各投資組合的報酬率分配,雖然Sharpe Ratio投組報酬率較高,但Performance Index指標建構的投資組合標準差明顯較低。最後使用六種方法將兩種指標形成混合因子進行投資,期望能同時達成高獲利低風險的效果,仍無法取得特殊效果。在利用主成分分析進行混合因子的過程中,模型計算的結果均為等權重,表示台灣基金市場中Performance Index和Sharpe Ratio間並無明顯差異,未來可針對其他風險較高的金融商品進行實證研究,探討Performance Index其他應用層面。
    摘要(英) The purpose of this study is to identify significant performance evaluation index and profit factors in Taiwan’s mutual fund market. Here we apply three indices: Performance Index, Sharpe Ratio, and R2 to mutual fund investments. We constitute five mutual fund portfolios monthly according to the rank of each index. The indices mentioned above can all divide superior and inferior mutual funds effectively.
    We apply a Four-Factor model to inspect whether abnormal return exists. Performance Index and Sharpe Ratio help to earn abnormal return, but R2 does not. We compare monthly return distribution of the best portfolio constructed by each index. The portfolio constructed using Sharpe Ratio produces higher profits, but the one constructed using Performance Index has smaller standard deviation and lower maximum drawdown.
    Finally, we apply six methods to mix Performance Index and Sharpe Ratio, but do not discover any special findings. We recommend applying Performance Index in higher risk financial instruments such as futures, options, or other derivatives for future research.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 風險
  • 共同基金
  • 績效評估
  • 投資組合
  • 主動管理
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • Risks
  • Selectivity
  • Active management
  • Mutual fund
  • Portfolio
  • Performance evaluation
  • 論文目次 論文審定書 i
    誌謝 ii
    摘要 iii
    ABSTRACT iv
    List of Figures vi
    List of Tables vii
    I. INTRODUCTION 1
    II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
    III. METHODOLOGY 11
    3.1 Data description 11
    3.2 Introduction of indices to evaluate performance 13
    3.2.1 Performance Index 13
    3.2.2 Sharpe Ratio 16
    3.2.3 1-R2 17
    3.3 Research Steps 18
    3.3.1 Indices with limitation and without limitation 18
    3.3.2 Method to recognize the performance of each index portfolio 19
    3.3.3 Index forming period and portfolio rebalancing frequency 20
    IV. EMPIRICAL RESULTS 21
    4.1 Summary Statistics and Overview of Indices 21
    4.2 Recognizing Mutual Fund Portfolio Performance 24
    4.2.1 Cumulative Returns of Portfolios 24
    4.2.2 Empirical Tests of Portfolios and Benchmark 27
    4.2.3 FFC Model Testing the Performance of Each Portfolio 29
    4.3 Characteristics of Portfolios 34
    4.3.1 Compare the best portfolio of each index 34
    4.3.2 Mixing Performance Index and Sharpe Ratio 36
    4.4 Consideration of transaction costs of mutual funds 39
    V. CONCLUSION 41
    REFERENCES 43
    APPENDIX 44
    參考文獻 Amihud, Y., & Goyenko, R. (2013). Mutual fund's R2 as predictor of performance. Review of Financial Studies, 26(3), 667-694.
    Aumann, R. J., & Serrano, R. (2008). An economic index of riskiness. Journal of Political Economy, 116(5), 810-836.
    Babalos, V., Mamatzakis, E. C., & Matousek, R. (2015). The performance of US equity mutual funds. Journal of Banking & Finance, 52, 217-229.
    Brands, S., Brown, S. J., & Gallagher, D. R. (2005). Portfolio concentration and investment manager performance. International Review of Finance, 5(3‐4), 149-174.
    Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57-82.
    Cremers, K. J., & Petajisto, A. (2009). How active is your fund manager? A new measure that predicts performance. Review of Financial Studies, 22(9), 3329-3365.
    Csaszar, F. A. (2012). Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 611-632.
    Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
    Foster, Dean P., and Sergiu Hart. "An operational measure of riskiness." Journal of Political Economy 117.5 (2009): 785-814.
    Kadan, O., & Liu, F. (2014). Performance evaluation with high moments and disaster risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 113(1), 131-155.
    Lintner, J. (1965). The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics, 13-37.
    Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
    Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442.
    Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. Journal of Business, 39(1), 119-138.
    Shu, P. G., Yeh, Y. H., & Yamada, T. (2002). The behavior of Taiwan mutual fund investors—performance and fund flows. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 10(5), 583-600.
    口試委員
  • 徐之強 - 召集委員
  • 何耕宇 - 委員
  • 周冠男 - 委員
  • 蔡維哲 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2017-06-15 繳交日期 2017-06-23

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫