Abstract
In this paper we evaluate and extend the PORTRAIT tool. PORTRAIT applies an argumentation based methodology for composing fund portfolios. Argumentation allows for combining different contexts and preferences in a way that can be optimized. It allows for defining a set of different investment policy scenarios and supports the investor/portfolio manager in composing efficient portfolios that meet her/his profile. The performance and risk of the constructed portfolios is compared with portfolios based on a traditional performance index under different scenarios. This approach is applied on data of Greek domestic equity mutual funds over the period from January 2006 to December 2011 with positive results. The empirical results of our study showed that argumentation is well suited for this type of applications giving answers to two important questions, i.e. which mutual funds are the most suitable to invest in, and, what portion of the available capital should be invested in each of these funds.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexakis P, Tsolas I (2011) Appraisal of mutual equity fund performance using Data Envelopment Analysis. Multinatl Financ J 15(3/4):273–296
Aouni B, Colapinto C, La Torre D (2014) Financial portfolio management through the goal programming model: current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res 234:536–545. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.040
Arenas-Parra M, Bilbao-Terol A, Rodriguez Uria MV (2001) A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection. Eur J Oper Res 133:287–297. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00298-8
Artikis GP (2004) Performance evaluation of the bond mutual funds operating in Greece. Manag Financ 30(10):1–13. doi:10.1108/03074350410769326
Babalos V, Caporale GM, Philippas N (2012a) Efficiency evaluation of Greek equity funds. Res Int Bus Financ 26:317–333. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.01.003
Babalos V, Philippas N, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2012b) Mutual fund performance appraisal using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Appl Math and Comput 218:5693–5703. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2011.11.066
Ballestero E, Romero C (1996) Portfolio selection: a compromise programming solution. J Oper Res Soc 47:1377–1386. doi:10.1057/jors.1996.173
Brown SJ, Goetzmann WN (1995) Performance persistence. J Financ 50(2):679–698. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb04800.x
Chen LH, Huang L (2009) Portfolio optimization of equity mutual funds with fuzzy returns rates and risks. Expert Syst Appl 36:3720–3727. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.027
Davies RJ, Kat HM, Lu S (2009) Fund of hedge funds portfolio selection: a multiple-objective approach. J Deriv Hedge Funds 15(2):91–115. doi:10.1057/jdhf.2009.1
Gladish BP, Jones DF, Tamiz M, Terol AB (2007) An interactive three-stage model for mutual funds portfolio selection. OMEGA 35:75–88. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.04.003
Goetzmann WN, Ibbotson RG (1994) Do winners repeat? Patterns in mutual fund performance. J Portf Manag 20:9–18. doi:10.3905/jpm.1994.9
Gruber MJ (1996) Another puzzle: the growth in actively managed mutual funds. J Financ 51:783–810. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb02707.x
Hendricks D, Patel J, Zeckhauser R (1993) Hot hands in mutual funds: short-Run Persistence of Relative Performance, 1974-1988. J Financ 48(1):93–130. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04703.x
Jensen CM (1969) Risk, the pricing of capital assets, and evaluations of investment portfolios. J Bus 42:167–247
Joo Oh K, Yoon Kim T, Min S (2005) Using genetic algorithm to support portfolio optimization for index fund management. Expert Syst Appl 8:371–379. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2004.10.014
Kahn RN, Rudd A (1995) Does historical performance predict future performance. Financ Anal J 51(6):43–53
Kakas A, Moraitis P (2003) Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS’03). ACM Press, New York, pp 883–890. doi:10.1145/860575.860717
Lee Sang M, Lerro AJ (1973) Optimizing the portfolio selection for mutual funds. J Financ 28(5):1087–1101. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01443.x
Malkiel BG (1995) Returns from investing in equity mutual funds 1971 to 1991. J Financ 50(2):549–572. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb04795.x
Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7(1):77–99
Markowitz HM (1959) Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments. Wiley, New York
Milonas N (1999) Greek mutual funds. Hellenic Bank Association and Sakoulas Editions, Athens (in Greek)
Pendaraki K (2012) Mutual fund performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis with higher moments. J Appl Financ Bank 2(5):97–112
Pendaraki K, Spanoudakis NI (2012) An interactive tool for mutual funds portfolio composition using argumentation. J Bus Econ Financ 1(3):33–51
Pendaraki K, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2003) Assessing equity funds’ performance using a multicriteria methodology: a comparative analysis. South East Eur J Econ 1:85–104
Pendaraki K, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004) Towards a goal programming methodology for constructing equity mutual funds portfolios. J Asset Manag 4(6):415–428. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jam.2240120
Pendaraki K, Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2005) A multicriteria methodology and an application to the Greek market of equity mutual funds. Eur J Oper Res 163:462–481. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2003.10.022
Philippas ND (1999) Mutual funds and stock exchange environment. Globus Invest, Athens (in Greek)
Rahwan I, Moraïtis P, Reed C (2005) Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Springer, Berlin
Sharma HP, Sharma DK (2006) A multi-objective decision making approach for mutual fund portfolio. J Bus Econ Res 4(6):13–23
Sharpe WF (1966) Mutual fund performance. J Bus 39:119–138
Sharpe WF (1967) A linear programming algorithm for a mutual fund portfolio selection. Manag Sci 13:499–510
Sorros JN (2003) Return and risk analysis: a case study in equity mutual funds operating in the Greek financial market. Manag Financ 29(9):21–28. doi:10.1108/03074350310768454
Spanoudakis N, Pendaraki K, Beligiannis G (2009) Portfolio construction using argumentation and hybrid evolutionary forecasting algorithms. Int J Hybrid Intell Syst 6(4):231–243. doi:10.3233/HIS-2009-0098
Spronk J, Steuer RE, Zopounidis C (2005) Multicriteria decision aid/analysis in finance. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Boston, pp 799–858
Steuer RA, Na P (2003) Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: a categorized bibliographic study. Eur J Oper Res 250:496–515. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00774-9
Subramanian V, Hung MS, Hu MY (1993) An experimental evaluation of neural networks for classification. Comput Oper Res 20(7):769–782. doi:10.1016/0305-0548(93)90063-O
Treynor JL (1965) How to rate management of investment funds. Harv Bus Rev 43:63–75
Vicente L, Ferruz L (2005) Performance persistence in Spanish equity funds. Appl Financ Econ 15:1305–1313. doi:10.1080/09603100500389697
Vidal-García J (2013) The persistence of European mutual fund performance. Res Int Bus Financ 28:45–67. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2012.09.004
Xidonas P, Mavrotas G, Psarras J (2009) A multicritera methodology for equity selection using finical analysis. Comput Per Res 36(12):3187–3203. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2009.02.009
Zopounidis C (1999) Multicriteria decision aid in financial management. Eur J Oper Res 119:404–415. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00142-3
Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002) Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 138:229–246. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0
Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2013) Multicriteria decision systems for financial problems. Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 21:241–261. doi:10.1007/s11750-013-0279-7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
A contingency table (Table 5) is used in order to identify the frequency with which funds are defined as winners (W—a fund with returns above the median) and losers (L—a fund with returns below the median) over successive time periods. If a fund is a loser (L) for consecutive periods, it is defined as a loser–loser (LL). Similarly, a winner (W) in the first period that remains a winner (W) in the future period is defined as winner–winner (WW). A fund that shifts from loser (L) to winner (W) is a loser–winner (LW), while a fund that shifts from winner (W) to loser (L) is a winner–loser (WL). A fund that ceases operation and was a winner or loser during the previous year is defined as winner–gone (WG) or loser–gone (LG).
It is obvious that in the case where the number of funds in existence is the same in each period the definition of the funds is simple. However, if funds enter or leave the sample, between period t and t + 1, there is a difficulty in fund classification. Let examine the persistence of returns for N funds in period t, where M new funds are operating (K funds close) in period t + 1, thus M + N (M + N − K) funds are to be ranked. Funds that are new in period t + 1 are classified, but the contingency table includes only funds which operate over consecutive periods.
The three statistical tests used to examine the performance persistence of the examined funds for a twelve year period (2000–2011) are described below.
Malkiel’s Z-test (1995): \( = ({\text{Y}} - {\text{np}})/\sqrt {({\text{np}}(1 - {\text{p}}))} \), which shows the proportion of repeat winners (WW) to winner–losers (WL), where Z is the statistic variable that follows a normal distribution (0, 1), Y is the number of winner funds in two consecutive periods, n is the sum of WW + WL, p is the probability of a winner fund in one period to repeat as a winner in the subsequent period. According to this criterion, a percentage of WW to WW + WL above 50 % and a Z-statistic above zero demonstrate performance persistence, while a percentage value below 50 % and Z-statistic above zero shows a reversal in performance. Malkiel’s Z-test is concentrated on only one quadrant of both repeat winners and repeat losers.
Brown and Goetzann Odds Ratio (OR) (1995): = (WW * LL)/(WL * LW). Using this ratio, the statistical significance of the OR is determined applying a Z-test to the following Z variable which follows a normal distribution (0, 1), \( {\text{Z}} = \ln ({\text{OR}})/\sigma_{{\ln_{{({\text{OR}})}} }} \). An OR of one supports the hypothesis that the performance in one period is unrelated to that in another while an OR greater than one (below one) indicates persistence (reversals in performance dominate the sample). The OR ratio tests the persistence of both repeat winners and repeat losers.
Khan and Rudd Chi-square statistic (1995):
where O ij and E ij are the actual and expected frequency of the ith row and the jth column in the contingency table respectively. The associated p value is used in order to test for performance persistence. The Chi-square test is taking into account the persistence of the contingency table as a whole.
Due to the limited space, we present in Table 6, only the combined results of four tables (available upon request) which shows the contingency table of fund returns along with the results of the statistical tests of the null hypothesis of no performance persistence between consecutive periods. Precisely, Table 6, presents combined results of performance persistence with 1 (t to t + 1), 2 (t to t + 2), 3 (t to t + 3) and 4-year lag (t to t + 4).
According to the results of this table, fifty-three percent (RW) of all winners in year 1 are winners in year 2, 179 (WW) of 336 (WW + WL). The percentage of RW for 2, 3 and 4 years are 52, 51 and 59 % respectively. However, the results of the examined tests show strong evidence of statistical significance performance persistence for 1-year and 4-years holding periods. More precisely, according to the first two tests, the percentage of RW is above 50 % while the Z-test is also above zero and statistical significant, thus is indicative of performance persistence. The same stands according to the OR ratio that is greater than one and the Z-stat which is also statistical significant. Thus, the results of the test statistics show that, at the overall level, there is evidence of performance persistence according to all three criteria for 1-year and 4-years holding periods. This evidence is in accordance with the results of other empirical studies which reveal that the relative performance of equity mutual funds persists from period to period (e.g. Hendricks et al. 1993; Gruber 1996; Vidal-García 2013). However, there is a series of empirical studies in support to the efficient markets hypothesis that past performance is no guide to future performance (e.g. Jensen 1969; Kahn and Rudd 1995).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pendaraki, K., Spanoudakis, N. Portfolio performance and risk-based assessment of the PORTRAIT tool. Oper Res Int J 15, 359–378 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0162-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0162-9