Research from the other side: What happens before the birth and after the death of a hedge fund?
| Feb 16th, 2010 | Filed under: Academic Research, Performance, Analytics & Metrics, Today's Post | By: Alpha Male |
|
Since the dawn of hedge fund indexes, detractors have charged that it’s simply impossible to capture the aggregate performance of an industry using voluntarily-provided data. The voluntary nature of hedge fund indexes has given birth to a litany of alleged “biases” and inaccuracies from survivorship and backfilling to selective reporting and outright BS.
The challenge for investors, academics and regulators has been that there is no objective way to measure this bias. There is no “compulsory” database against which to compare the bevy of voluntary ones in existence today. More…
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
Related Posts
- Regulators take note: New research finds mutual fund managers do better, not worse, when they also manage “side-by-side” hedge funds
- Study aims to shed light on “darkness” in hedge fund databases
- A closer look at the “surprisingly small” change in hedge fund numbers last year
- An academic explanation for the disparity in hedge fund index returns
- Returns of so-called “dead” hedge funds found not to be that bad after all
I would like to thank the author for covering my research on the website. I believe that he/she did a great job of explaining the key results from the analysis done by my coauthors and me. Also, I have recently completed another research paper on confidential 13F filings by institutional investors, which have not been examined before. I believe that the readers of this blog will find it very interesting and would like to share the link to download the other paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476557
Thanks,
Vikas