Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/pitfalls-of-downside-performance-measures-with-arbitrary-targets-j0ca6SG3Uq
References (33)
-
Sven Balder, Nikolaus Schweizer (2017)
Risk aversion vs. the Omega ratio: Consistency resultsFinance Research Letters, 21
-
Li Chen, Simai He, Shuzhong Zhang (2011)
When all risk-adjusted performance measures are the same: in praise of the Sharpe ratioQuantitative Finance, 11
-
M. Eling, Frank Schuhmacher (2007)
Does the Choice of Performance Measure Influence the Evaluation of Hedge Funds?Mutual Funds
-
Valeri Zakamouline (2014)
Portfolio performance evaluation with loss aversionQuantitative Finance, 14
-
F. Sortino, R. Meer, A. Plantinga (1999)
The Dutch triangle - A framework to measure upside potential relative to downside risk.The Journal of Portfolio Management, 26
-
C. Keating, W. Shadwick (2002)
A Universal Performance Measure -
Simone Farinelli, L. Tibiletti (2008)
Sharpe thinking in asset ranking with one-sided measuresEur. J. Oper. Res., 185
-
William SHARPEt, Jack Treynor (2007)
MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE* -
J. Robert (2009)
On the Ω-Ratio -
W. Harlow, R. Rao (1989)
Asset Pricing in a Generalized Mean-Lower Partial Moment Framework: Theory and EvidenceJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 24
-
M. Eling (2008)
Does the Measure Matter in the Mutual Fund Industry?Financial Analysts Journal, 64
-
K. Dowd (2000)
Adjusting for risk:: An improved Sharpe ratioInternational Review of Economics & Finance, 9
-
(2004)
Kappa: A Generalized Downside Risk-Adjusted Performance Measure -
S. Satchell (2001)
Lower partial-moment capital asset pricing models: A re-examination -
Bawa (1977)
Capital Market Equilibrium in a Mean-Lower Partial Moment FrameworkJournal of Financial Economics, 5
-
V. Agarwal, Narayan Naik (2004)
Risks and Portfolio Decisions Involving Hedge FundsReview of Financial Studies, 17
-
F. Sortino, R. Meer, A. Plantinga (1999)
The Dutch Triangle, 26
-
S. Satchel, F. Sortino (2001)
Managing downside risk in financial markets -
G. Chamberlain (1983)
A characterization of the distributions that imply mean—Variance utility functions☆Journal of Economic Theory, 29
-
Jack Meyer (1988)
Two Moment Decision Models And Expected Utility Maximization: Some Implications For Applied Research -
Frank Schuhmacher, Wolfgang Breuer (2014)
When all risk-adjusted performance measures are the same: in praise of the Sharpe ratio ‒ a commentQuantitative Finance, 14
-
Vijay Bawa (1978)
Safety-First, Stochastic Dominance, and Optimal Portfolio ChoiceJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 13
-
D. Johnstone, D. Lindley (2011)
Elementary proof that mean–variance implies quadratic utilityTheory and Decision, 70
-
C. Pedersen, S. Satchell (2002)
On the foundation of performance measures under asymmetric returnsQuantitative Finance, 2
-
(1977)
The intercept of this line is τ = r -
Darsinos (2004)
Generalizing Universal Performance MeasuresRisk, 17
-
Frank Schuhmacher, M. Eling (2012)
A decision-theoretic foundation for reward-to-risk performance measuresJournal of Banking and Finance, 36
-
Jack Treynor, F. Black (1973)
How to Use Security Analysis to Improve Portfolio SelectionThe Journal of Business, 46
-
Joel Owen, Ramon Rabinovitch (1983)
On the Class of Elliptical Distributions and Their Applications to the Theory of Portfolio ChoiceJournal of Finance, 38
-
Valeriy Zakamulin (2010)
On the Consistent Use of VaR in Portfolio Performance Evaluation: A Cautionary Note -
José Ornelas, Antônio Júnior, J. Fernandes (2009)
Yes, the Choice of Performance Measure Does Matter for Ranking of US Mutual FundsInternational Center for Finance at Yale School of Management
-
F. Sortino, L. Price (1994)
Performance Measurement in a Downside Risk Framework, 3
-
V. Bawa, E. Lindenberg (1977)
Abstract: Capital Market Equilibrium in a Mean-Lower Partial Moment FrameworkJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- © 2017 International Review of Finance Ltd. 2017
- ISSN
- 1369-412X
- eISSN
- 1468-2443
- DOI
- 10.1111/irfi.12137
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Downside performance measures relate above target returns with lower partial moments. They were developed to resolve restrictive assumptions of the classical Sharpe ratio. While the Sharpe ratio evaluates whether portfolios of a mutual fund and the risk‐free asset dominate passive portfolios of the benchmark and the risk‐free asset, this characteristic cannot be transferred to downside performance measures with arbitrary targets. We show that downside performance measures assign different values to passive benchmark strategies if the target differs from the risk‐free rate. This effect can lead to reverse rankings of financial assets. Therefore, downside performance measures are only applicable in asset management if the target is set equal to the risk‐free rate.
Journal
International Review of Finance – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2017