Performance metrics for Spanish investment funds
Luis Ferruz
*
, Christian Pedersen and Jose
´
L. Sarto
*
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies,
University of Zaragoza, C/ Gran
´
a 2, Zaragoza 50005, Spain.
Received (in revised form): 16th October, 2006
Luis Ferruz is Full Professor in finance and supervisor of the research group GIECOFIN in the Faculty of Economics
and Business Studies at the University of Zaragoza, Spain.
Christian Pedersen is Director in Finance and Risk Management in Mercer, Oliver, Wyman. He holds a PhD on Risk
Measurement in Finance from Cambridge University.
Jose
´
L. Sarto is Full Professor in finance in the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies at the University of
Zaragoza, Spain.
Practical applications
This paper is useful for investors and managers of investment funds since it tries to identify the true
performance of these portfolios. The empirical results obtained in the Spanish equity fund market
provide evidence for the incorrect performance valuations when classical indexes are considered.
These problems are caused by: 1) the asymmetric return distributions; 2) the negative return premia.
On this subject, the application of the original measures proposed in this work leads to coherent
performance rankings. So, these rankings suppose very useful information for fund investors to value
the management quality of each fund and for fund managers to know their relative position with
respect to the rest of the market.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the most
appropriate way to capture the true performance of
Spanish equity funds, considering that almost all have
significantly asymmetric return distributions over the
time period studied. We apply alternative risk
measures, such as semi-standard deviation and absolute
deviation and test if the associated performance
measures provide markedly different rankings from the
classic indices. We find that one subset of funds
analysed displays negative return premia, and make an
additional adjustment to the suggested performance
metrics. Overall when comparing the rankings, we see
strong evidence that — despite the strong asymmetry in
returns the non-traditional performance metrics do
not differ markedly from the traditional measurements.
This would point to the Spanish equity market
behaving more like more mature and liquid markets,
and hence being amenable to the application of classic
performance and investment management tools.
Derivatives Use, Trading & Regulation (2006) 12,
219–227. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dutr.1850043
Keywords: asymmetric return
distributions; Spanish equity funds; performance
measures
Derivatives Use, Trading & Regulation Volume 12 Number 3 2006 219
www.palgrave-journals.com/dutr
Derivatives Use,
Trading & Regulation,
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2006,
pp. 219–227
r 2006 Palgrave
Macmillan Ltd
1357-0927/06 $30.00
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS
Investment funds have been one of the most
important recent phenomena in Spanish
financial markets. The growth of the assets under
management by Spanish funds have been one of
the biggest in Europe for the past 15 years, with
a compounded annual rate of growth greater
than 25 per cent. In all, 250bn euros are
currently managed by approximately 2,600
Spanish investing funds.
Investment funds are now the third most
important investment alternative in Spanish
home portfolios, ahead of other products such as
pension funds and life insurances. The average
assets managed by each Spanish fund are,
however, still one of the lowest in the European
Union, reporting a market map where a small
number of large funds coexist with a vast
majority of small funds. The overall picture
points to a set of vehicles reflecting illiquidity
and ‘youth’ often leading to strong
asymmetric return distributions.
In this study, we examine the degree of
asymmetry of the returns of these funds and then
evaluate different metrics for capturing their
performance. To determine the performance
values for each fund, we initially consider three
of the indices most commonly implemented in
the financial literature, these being Sharpe
Ratio
1
, Treynor’s Index
2
and Jensen’s Alpha
3
,
while taking into account the total risk of each
portfolio and its systematic risk.
In line with studies by Damant et al.,
4
Eftekhari et al.,
5
Konno and Shirakawa,
6
Okunev
7
and Pedersen and Satchell,
8,9
using
variance, and therefore standard deviation, to
measure the total risk in portfolios was not the
most suitable method when the historical return
distributions of said portfolios display problems
of asymmetry. This is supported by Sortino and
Price,
10
who defend the use of other alternative
risk measures such as semi-standard deviation
and propose alternative ratios for performance
this was taken further in Eftekhari et al.
5
and
Pedersen and Satchell,
9
who examined such
alternative metrics in more detail. Hence, these
are also tested to see if different from the
traditional performance metrics.
Such alternative measures have also appeared in
the works of Damant and Satchell,
11
Hwang and
Pedersen,
12
Eftekhari and Satchell
13
and Pedersen.
14
Recent studies focused on the application
of asymmetric risk measure are those conducted by
Ang et al.,
15
Hyung and De Vries,
16
Campbell and
Kraeussl,
17
Cheng,
18
Gu,
19
Post and Van Vliet
20
and
Morton et al.
21
Our preliminary examinations also reveal that
a subset of those portfolios considered display a
negative return premium in comparison to the
risk-free assets considered. Hence, we apply
complementary measurements of performance
based on studies conducted by Ferruz et al.
22
and
Ferruz and Sarto.
23,24
Finally, we examine the levels of correlation
existing among all the performance indices taken
into consideration to opine on whether moving
to the less traditional metrics is justified
empirically as well as theoretically that is we
will see whether rankings of real fund
performance changes significantly.
The fundamentally differential elements of
this work are its focus on a relatively infrequently
analysed market, as is the case with the Spanish
market, and the degree to which Spanish
investment funds display problems with
asymmetry as regards their returns distributions
which, as far as we are aware, has not been
analysed previously for the Spanish market. It
is also the first time that alternative measures
to determine levels of performance has been
220 Ferruz, Pedersen and Sarto
applied to Spanish data using the methodologies
of Hwang and Pedersen,
25
Estrada
26
and
Eftekhari and Satchell.
13
Inthefollowingsectionweshallanalysethe
characteristics of the database used. The third part
of this study develops the empirical analysis and
we reserve the final section for our conclusions.
THE DATABASE
We analyse 85 Spanish equity funds, which have
the Spanish domestic market as the principal
investment objective. The time-frame for the
study spans from July 1994 to December 2004,
inclusive. The reason for these funds being chosen
is due exclusively to the fact that they represent
the entire population of funds to survive the
aforementioned timescale. We note that this will
in fact understate the asymmetry in returns of
Spanish funds, since those which have failed
would exhibit higher skewness. Nonetheless,
we consider this the most appropriate data upon
which to base our investigations. Our dataset is
biweekly returns from this period.
Asymmetry of return distributions
We have used the skewness coefficient of Fisher
below to test for skewness in the data.
a
3
¼
P
n
t¼1
R
t
EðRÞ

3
,
n
s
3
InTableA1(inAppendixA),wehaveshownthe
asymmetry coefficients corresponding to the
biweekly return distributions of each investment
fund. In this table, we find an identification
number for each fund and the level of significance
of asymmetry presented by each portfolio. In this
respect, the level of significance is 1 per cent in 66
funds and 5 per cent in 74 funds, a circumstance
that demonstrates the generalized nature of this
problem. This problem of asymmetry in the
Spanish Market can be due to the youth of the
market because the investment funds have
experienced high growth only in the last 15 years,
which is a short period of time comparing to
more mature markets like the US or UK.
Negative return premia
Studies by Ferruz et al.
22.
and Ferruz and Sarto
23,24
demonstrate the problems that can arise when
the average historical return of portfolios taken
into consideration is below the level of risk-free
assets. In this respect, they demonstrate that
indices such as Sharpe or Treynor do not
function correctly when faced with variations in
the level of risk in the portfolio.
Specifically, the aforementioned authors offer
an alternative measure S
p
(1) of performance to
Sharpe’s Ratio which, while maintaining the
nature of the original index, considers the return
premium in relative terms.
S
p
ð1Þ¼
E
p
=R
f
s
p
Table A2 (in Appendix A) displays the average
biweekly return values of each portfolio in
addition to their standard deviation and the level
of systematic risk using the b coefficient applied
in correlation with the Madrid Stock Exchange
General Index (IGBM). There are 20 funds that
display a biweekly average return of less than
0.13 per cent corresponding to the riskfree assets
considered, Treasury Repos with overnight
securities. Hence, we make the corrections
above where this is a problem.
ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
Hence, as mentioned earlier, the traditional
indices of Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen are taken
Performance metrics for Spanish investment funds 221
into consideration in this study. But given the
characteristics of the database outlined above, we
supplement these with semi-standard deviation
and absolute deviation (to capture asymmetry).
Additionally, both these ‘new’ metrics and the
Sharpe Ratio with the above adjustments in
consideration of the return premium in a relative
sense as opposed to in absolute terms. Hence, we
have six metrics tested in all.
Specifically, in accordance with these
considerations, in addition to the S
p
(1) index, we
propose two alternative indices to the Sharpe
Ratio. The first of these is expressed as follows:
Pð1Þ¼
E
p
=R
f
SSD
p
where E
p
represents the average return on
portfolio p; R
f
indicates the average return on
the risk-free asset; SSD
p
is the semi-standard
deviation of the return on portfolio p.
This index is therefore similar to Sortino’s
index, although the return premium is expressed
in relative terms. The semi-standard deviation is
calculated as follows:
SSD
p
¼
1
n
X
n
t¼1
ðmin½0; R
pt
E
p
Þ
2
"#
1=2
And the second measure is:
Pð2Þ¼
E
p
=R
f
AD
p
where AD
p
indicates the absolute deviation of
the returns on portfolio p, which would be
calculated as follows:
AD
p
¼ E½jR
p
E
p
j
The results of applying the aforementioned indices
are illustrated in Tables A3 and A4, where we
display the funds corresponding to the best quartile
from applying Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen’s indices
in Table A3 and for the alternative indices S
p
(1),
P(1) and P(2) in Table A4. The strong similarity is
immediately apparent. Finally, Table 1 indicates the
levels of correlation among all the six classifications
considering the whole dataset.
As can be seen, the correlation between the
measures is very high. What this implies is that
although the theory suggests we change from
traditional to asymmetric measures corrected for
the negative excess returns, in practice there is
not a material change in performance rankings
of the funds from doing so.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper is a study of the performance of
Spanish domestic equity funds to determine how
one best can calculate their performance. Given
the relative youth of these funds and illiquidity of
the market, the key question is whether
traditional measures of performance (Sharpe,
Treynor and Jensen) are applicable. The study
Table 1: Correlation coefficients between two-by-two performance rankings
Sharpe Treynor Jensen S
p
(1) P(1) P(2)
Sharpe 0.9748 0.9564 0.9198 0.9200 0.9130
Treynor 0.9336 0.9009 0.9113 0.9104
Jensen 0.9483 0.9451 0.9449
S
p
(1) 0.9981 0.9945
P(1) 0.9954
P(2)—————
222 Ferruz, Pedersen and Sarto
includes all funds operating the whole period
between July 1994 and December 2004.
We find significant asymmetry in biweekly
return distributions in 74 of the 85 portfolios
analysed this represents a problem when
employing common total risk measures such as
variance or standard deviation, which require
symmetric return distributions to be valid for
general investor preferences. Moreover, we
observe that a subset of the investment funds in
the sample do not attain the average return
corresponding to risk-free assets, a situation
which also leads to anomalies in the performance
rankings resulting from measurements such as
Sharpe’s Ratio or Treynor’s Index.
In order to avoid the two aforementioned
theoretical issues, alternative performance
indices are proposed in the empirical study,
which on the one hand, include risk
measurements such as semi-standard deviation or
absolute deviation and, on the other, approach
the return premium in a relative sense.
The calculated performance rankings resulting
from the application of all the measurements
considered, however, barely differ from one
another. What this suggests is that despite the
anomalies described above, the traditional
performance metrics to be applied. While this
could be a signal that investor preferences are
generally mean–variance in nature, a more plausible
explanation is that the market has matured quite
rapidly and much faster than some emerging
markets areas — has reached a level where tools for
analysis should be based on those tools applied in
the world’s most sophisticated markets.
DISCLAIMER
We stress that the opinions stated in this paper
exclusively reflect the view of the author and are
not those of Mercer Oliver Wyman.
References
1 Sharpe W.F. (1966) ‘Mutual Fund Performance’, Journal
of Business, Vol. 39, pp. 119–138.
2 Treynor J.L. (1965) ‘How to Rate Management of
Investment Funds’, Harvard Business Review, January-
February, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 63–75.
3 Jensen M.C. (1968) ‘The Performance of Mutual Funds in the
Period 1945–1964’, JournalofFinance, Vol. 23, pp. 389–416.
4 Damant D., Hwang S. and Satchell S. (2000) ‘Using a
Model of Integrated Risk to Assess U.K. Asset Allocation’,
Applied Mathematical Finance, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 127–152.
5 Eftekhari B., Pedersen C.S. and Satchell S.E. (2000)
‘On the Volatility of Measures of Financial Risk: An
Investigation Using Returns from European Markets’,
The European Journal of Finance, Vol. 6, pp. 18–38.
6 Konno H. and Shirakawa H. (1994) ‘Equilibrium
Relations in a Capital Asset Market: A Mean–Absolute
Deviation Approach’, Financial Engineering and the
Japanese Markets, Vol. 1, pp. 21–35.
7 Okunev J. (1990) ‘An Alternative Measure of Mutual
Fund Performance’, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, Vol. 17, pp. 247–264.
8 Pedersen C. and Satchell S. (2000) ‘Small Sample
Analysis of Performance Measures in the Asymmetric
Response Model’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 425–450.
9 Pedersen C.S. and Satchell S.E. (2002) ‘On the
Foundations of Performance Measures under Asymmetric
Returns’, Quantitative Finance, Vol. 3, pp. 217–223.
10 Sortino F.A. and Price L.N. (1994) ‘Performance
Measurement in a Downside Risk Framework’, Journal
of Investing, Fall, pp. 59–72.
11 Damant D. and Satchell S. (1996) ‘Downside Risk:
Modern Theories; Stop-and Start Again’, Professional
Investor, May-June, pp. 12–18.
12 Hwang S. and Pedersen C. (2002) ‘On Empirical Risk
Measurement with Asymmetric Return Distributions
Financial Econometrics Research Centre Working Paper
WP02-07, City University Business School, London.
13 Eftekhari B. and Satchell S. (1996) ‘Non-normality of
Returns in Emerging Markets’, Research in International
Business and Finance (Suppl 1), pp. 267–277.
14 Pedersen C. (2001) ‘Derivatives and Downside Risk’,
Derivatives Use, Trading and Regulation, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp. 251–268.
15 Ang A.J.Chen and Xing Y. (2005) ‘Downside Risk’,
AFA Meeting, 7–9 January, Philadelphia, PA.
16 Hyung N. and De Vries C.G. (2004) ‘Portfolio
Diversification Effects of Downside RiskTinbergen
Institute Discussion Paper TI 05-008/2.
17 Campbell R. and Kraeussl R. (2005) ‘Revisiting the
Home Bias Puzzle: Downside Equity RiskWorking
Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=802704.
Performance metrics for Spanish investment funds 223
18 Cheng P. (2005) ‘Asymmetric Risk Measures and Real
Estate Returns’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics, Vol. 30, p. 1.
19 Gu L. (2005) ‘Asymmetric Risk Loadings in the Cross
Section of Stock Returns’, Working Paper.
20 Post T. and Van Vliet P. (2005) ‘Downside Risk and
Asset PricingERIM Report, Series reference No. ERS-
2004-018-F&A.
21 Morton D., Popova I. and Popova E. (2006) ‘Efficient
Fund of Hedge Funds Construction under Downside
Risk Measures’, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 30,
No. 2, February, pp. 503–518.
22 Ferruz L., Sarto J.L. and Vargas M. (2003) ‘Analysis of
Performance Persistence in Spanish Short-term Fixed
Interest Investment Funds (1994–2002)’, European Review
of Economics and Finance, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 61–75.
23 Ferruz L. and Sarto J.L. (2004) ‘An Analysis of Spanish
Investment Funds Performance: Some Considerations
Concerning Sharpe’s Ratio’, Omega, The International
Journal of Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 273–284.
24 Ferruz L. and Sarto J.L. (2005) ‘Some Reflections on
the Sharpe Ratio and its Empirical Application to Fund
Management in Spain’, Advances in Investment Analysis
and Portfolio Management, Vol. I, pp. 205–224, New
Jersey (USA).
25 Hwang S. and Pedersen C. (2004) ‘Asymmetric Risk
Measures When Modelling Emerging Markets Equities:
Evidence for Regional and Timing Effects’, Emerging
Markets Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 109–128.
26 Estrada J. (2000) ‘The Cost of Equity in Emerging
Markets: A Downside Risk Approach’, Emerging
Markets Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 19–30.
Table A1: Asymmetry test of the investment funds of the sample
12 4.17 134 3.33 243 5.23 445 2.86
13 8.69 136 4.73 248 6.56 446 2.73
24 3.61 137 2.54 252 5.13 449 2.87
30 5.54 139 5.07 262 3.88 451 5.33
33 4.00 148 1.96 265 4.48 453 4.02
36 4.43 151 2.09 276 0.42 454 2.57
38 3.37 157 5.89 279 4.20 461 1.31
40 3.60 160 0.57 282 4.84 463 4.14
41 2.37 164 3.90 294 4.39 466 4.75
46 2.88 168 2.42 321 2.90 468 3.98
58 5.17 174 1.99 336 3.15 475 6.12
59 2.66 186 4.08 346 3.94 476 4.30
65 3.89 187 4.14 351 4.45 477 4.62
71 3.32 193 5.27 365 4.03 484 2.65
76 9.28 207 2.40 377 0.84 487 9.46
87 3.90 211 4.98 382 0.44 497 6.16
90 4.08 215 4.71 393 1.43 498 1.14
100 3.08 219 2.50 403 5.31 502 0.70
108 5.46 228 4.49 419 4.14 503 6.50
114 4.27 229 4.68 421 0.71
124 4.42 231 4.44 422 0.21
131 4.07 233 2.80 428 4.76
Note: The numbers in bold are the fund identification numbers according to the supervisor authorities of the
Spanish Market.
Appendix A
224 Ferruz, Pedersen and Sarto
Table A2: Statistics of the funds in the sample
Mean (%) s (%) b Mean (%) s (%) b Mean (%) s (%) b
12 0.19 2.30 0.60 160 0.21 3.44 0.86 377 0.67 2.22 0.42
13 0.15 2.43 0.60 164 0.28 3.65 1.00 382 0.19 1.10 0.26
24 0.14 2.11 0.53 168 0.24 3.98 1.05 393 0.04 2.29 0.54
30 0.18 1.69 0.45 174 0.27 2.48 0.63 403 0.19 1.47 0.37
33 0.24 3.15 0.85 186 0.20 3.51 0.95 419 0.23 3.63 0.91
36 0.23 3.12 0.85 187 0.23 2.06 0.54 421 0.24 2.96 0.62
38 0.12 2.44 0.63 193 0.05 2.47 0.63 422 0.17 3.00 0.69
40 0.17 2.00 0.53 207 0.20 1.34 0.32 428 0.28 3.59 0.94
41 0.15 2.71 0.71 211 0.31 1.84 0.47 445 0.11 2.52 0.62
46 0.32 2.74 0.66 215 0.20 3.06 0.83 446 0.07 2.55 0.60
58 0.27 3.48 0.95 219 0.12 2.08 0.43 449 0.14 2.43 0.62
59 0.18 3.21 0.82 228 0.26 3.61 0.97 451 0.17 1.69 0.44
65 0.13 2.99 0.76 229 0.09 3.45 0.86 453 0.27 3.81 1.05
71 0.17 1.56 0.36 231 0.03 4.00 0.91 454 0.03 2.54 0.60
76 0.02 3.46 0.85 233 0.11 2.19 0.53 461 0.15 1.95 0.47
87 0.13 1.85 0.50 243 0.14 1.94 0.46 463 0.22 3.69 1.01
90 0.30 3.59 0.97 248 0.23 1.91 0.43 466 0.17 3.29 0.89
100 0.16 1.99 0.49 252 0.23 2.30 0.59 468 0.21 1.60 0.43
108 0.31 3.44 0.94 262 0.34 3.12 0.82 475 0.30 3.48 0.92
114 0.09 2.74 0.71 265 0.23 2.79 0.72 476 0.36 3.72 1.02
124 0.19 1.46 0.39 276 0.35 1.51 0.36 477 0.35 3.73 1.01
131 0.28 3.94 1.04 279 0.07 1.87 0.48 484 0.24 1.40 0.29
134 0.35 2.73 0.73 282 0.18 3.59 0.98 487 0.11 3.66 0.91
136 0.28 3.52 0.96 294 0.09 2.38 0.32 497 0.25 3.49 0.92
137 0.06 2.74 0.67 321 0.26 2.03 0.48 498 0.19 1.05 0.27
139 0.18 2.22 0.61 336 0.22 3.00 0.78 502 0.48 1.91 0.29
148 0.09 3.01 0.72 346 0.12 3.10 0.77 503 0.10 3.28 0.82
151 0.21 2.86 0.77 351 0.23 3.46 0.94
157 0.18 2.79 0.74 365 0.13 1.78 0.45
Performance metrics for Spanish investment funds 225
Table A3: Rankings of Sharpe’s, Treynor’s and Jensen’s performance measures
Sharpe Treynor Jensen
377 0.2383 377 0.0127 377 0.0044
502 0.1771 502 0.0118 502 0.0028
276 0.1414 276 0.0060 276 0.0014
211 0.0953 211 0.0037 211 0.0007
134 0.0781 484 0.0034 134 0.0006
484 0.0695 134 0.0029 46 0.0004
46 0.0664 46 0.0028 484 0.0004
262 0.0636 321 0.0025 262 0.0002
476 0.0594 262 0.0024 321 0.0002
321 0.0591 248 0.0022 248 0.0000
477 0.0574 382 0.0022 476 0.0000
174 0.0546 476 0.0022 382 0.0000
382 0.0507 174 0.0021 174 0.0000
248 0.0502 477 0.0021 477 0.0000
108 0.0489 498 0.0019 498 0.0001
475 0.0477 207 0.0018 207 0.0001
498 0.0472 475 0.0018 187 0.0002
187 0.0466 108 0.0018 468 0.0002
90 0.0458 187 0.0018 403 0.0003
207 0.0433 90 0.0017 124 0.0003
468 0.0423 252 0.0016 475 0.0003
226 Ferruz, Pedersen and Sarto
Table A4: Rankings of the performance measures S
p
(1), P(1) and P(2)
S
p
(1) P(1) P(2)
377 216.8555 377 308.2332 377 290.8604
502 180.0280 502 267.9166 502 281.3508
276 168.0345 276 240.2057 276 213.5395
498 128.9604 382 180.9977 382 177.8486
382 127.1919 498 178.7577 498 171.9377
211 123.0518 484 164.9954 484 171.6569
484 121.5316 211 160.6403 211 163.7080
207 105.6582 207 143.5833 207 137.3943
124 95.1907 321 126.7023 248 134.1599
403 94.0620 124 126.1746 403 127.6107
468 93.1409 134 124.6339 124 125.1870
134 92.9542 403 124.0520 321 123.3775
321 91.8181 468 123.1986 468 122.6765
248 88.6346 248 116.5368 134 122.1280
46 84.3344 46 115.3256 46 111.5366
187 82.0473 174 108.6909 187 106.7029
174 79.7809 187 108.2803 71 104.2226
262 77.9133 262 104.1017 174 102.4450
71 77.0738 71 102.4261 262 102.0625
30 74.6152 30 98.3378 252 99.7181
252 72.9181 252 95.5272 30 99.2002
Performance metrics for Spanish investment funds 227