Evaluating Fund Performance by Compromise Programming with Linear-Quadratic Composite Metric: An Actual Case on The CaixaBank in Spain

This paper proposes an additive measure on the basis of compromise programming to evaluate fund performance from multiple criteria, of which the most usual are profitability and risk. This proposal is motivated by the fact that compromise programming is a sound decision support model to obtain scores of alternatives by minimizing weighted distances to an ideal point, the weights reflecting the investor's preferences for the criteria. To define the distance objective function, the linear-quadratic composite metric is used, which combines advantages of linear and non-linear objective functions. A critical advantage of compromise programming for fund performance evaluation is that the model can be extended to more than two financial criteria while other measures currently used (either ratio-based or leverage-based measures) only consider two criteria, say, profitability and risk. In the application, three investor's profiles are defined, which involve different weighting systems and lead to different fund rankings. These rankings are compared with domination relationships, the latter formulating if a fund is dominated or non-dominated by convex combinations of other funds. Numerical tables are provided with data, computational process and results, which are analysed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Fouad Ben Abdelaziz,et al.  Stochastic programming with fuzzy linear partial information on probability distribution , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Fouad Ben Abdelaziz,et al.  A Discrete Stochastic Goal Program for Portfolio Selection: The Case of United Arab Emirates Equity Market , 2009, INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res..

[3]  Fouad Ben Abdelaziz,et al.  Decision-maker's preferences modeling in the stochastic goal programming , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Carl R. Chen Mutual Fund Governance and Performance: A Quantile Regression Analysis of Morningstar's Stewardship Grade , 2011 .

[5]  Maghsoud Amiri,et al.  Nadir compromise programming: A model for optimization of multi-objective portfolio problem , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  Amelia Bilbao-Terol,et al.  Selecting Portfolios Given Multiple Eurostoxx-Based Uncertainty Scenarios: A Stochastic Goal Programming Approach from Fuzzy Betas , 2009, INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res..

[7]  Amelia Bilbao-Terol,et al.  Fuzzy compromise programming for portfolio selection , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[8]  Jih-Jeng Huang,et al.  A novel hybrid model for portfolio selection , 2005, Appl. Math. Comput..

[9]  Mar Arenas Parra,et al.  Socially Responsible Investment: A multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Enrique Ballestero,et al.  Selecting the CP metric: A risk aversion approach , 1997 .

[11]  Constantin Zopounidis,et al.  Multiattribute evaluation of greek banking performance , 1995 .

[12]  Amelia Bilbao-Terol,et al.  Selecting the optimum portfolio using fuzzy compromise programming and Sharpe's single-index model , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[13]  Yue Qi,et al.  Suitable-portfolio investors, nondominated frontier sensitivity, and the effect of multiple objectives on standard portfolio selection , 2007, Ann. Oper. Res..

[14]  M. C. Jensen The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964 , 1967 .

[15]  Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann,et al.  Assessing the performance of alternative investments using non-parametric efficiency measurement approaches: Is it convincing? , 2010 .

[16]  E. Ballestero Mean‐Semivariance Efficient Frontier: A Downside Risk Model for Portfolio Selection , 2005 .

[17]  Kristiaan Kerstens,et al.  Non-parametric frontier estimates of mutual fund performance using C- and L-moments: Some specification tests , 2011 .

[18]  Enrique Ballestero,et al.  Stochastic goal programming: A mean-variance approach , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Amelia Bilbao-Terol,et al.  A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  David Pla-Santamaria,et al.  Selecting portfolios for mutual funds , 2004 .

[21]  R. GrahamJohn,et al.  Grading the Performance of Market-Timing Newsletters , 1997 .

[22]  P. Mahoney Manager-Investor Conflicts in Mutual Funds , 2004 .

[23]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Recurrent neural network for dynamic portfolio selection , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[24]  Fouad Ben Abdelaziz,et al.  Multi-objective stochastic programming for portfolio selection , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Jih-Jeng Huang,et al.  A novel algorithm for uncertain portfolio selection , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[26]  Mehrdad Tamiz,et al.  An interactive three-stage model for mutual funds portfolio selection ☆ , 2007 .

[27]  John A. Haslem,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis of Morningstar's Large-Cap Mutual Funds , 2003 .

[28]  Constantin Zopounidis,et al.  Towards a goal programming methodology for constructing equity mutual fund portfolios , 2004 .

[29]  Enrique Ballestero,et al.  Portfolio selection on the Madrid Exchange: a compromise programming model , 2003 .

[30]  Amelia Bilbao-Terol,et al.  An extension of Sharpe's single-index model: portfolio selection with expert betas , 2006, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[31]  Enrique Ballestero,et al.  Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  David Pla-Santamaria,et al.  Portfolio Selection from Multiple Benchmarks: A Goal Programming Approach to an Actual Case , 2010 .

[33]  David Pla-Santamaria,et al.  Grading the performance of market indicators with utility benchmarks selected from Footsie: a 2000 case study , 2005 .

[34]  R. Salomons A tactical implication of predictability: fighting the FED model , 2006 .