Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Look-ahead benchmark bias in portfolio performance evaluation


Daniel, Gilles; Sornette, Didier; Woehrmann, Peter (2009). Look-ahead benchmark bias in portfolio performance evaluation. Journal of Portfolio Management, 36(1):121-130.

Abstract

Performance of investment managers is predominantly evaluated against targeted benchmarks, such as stock, bond or commodity indices. However, most professional databases
do not retain timeseries for companies that disappeared, and do not necessarily track the change of constitution in these benchmarks. Consequently, standard tests of performance suffer from the “look-ahead benchmark bias,” where a given strategy is naively back-tested against the assets constituting the benchmark of reference at the end of the testing period (i.e. now), rather than at the very beginning of that period.
We report that the “look-ahead benchmark bias” can exhibit a surprisingly large amplitude for portfolios of common stocks (up to 8% per annum for the S&P500 taken as the benchmark), while most studies have emphasized related survival biases in performance of mutual and hedge funds for which the biases can be expected to be even larger. We use the CRSP database from 1926 to 2006 and analyze the running top 500 US capitalizations to demonstrate that this bias can account for a gross overestimation of performance metrics such as the Sharpe ratio as well as an underestimation of risk, as measured for instance by peak-to-valley drawdowns. We demonstrate the presence of a significant bias in the estimation of the survival and look-ahead biases studied in the literature. A general methodology to test the properties of investment strategies is advanced in terms of random strategies with similar investment constraints.

Abstract

Performance of investment managers is predominantly evaluated against targeted benchmarks, such as stock, bond or commodity indices. However, most professional databases
do not retain timeseries for companies that disappeared, and do not necessarily track the change of constitution in these benchmarks. Consequently, standard tests of performance suffer from the “look-ahead benchmark bias,” where a given strategy is naively back-tested against the assets constituting the benchmark of reference at the end of the testing period (i.e. now), rather than at the very beginning of that period.
We report that the “look-ahead benchmark bias” can exhibit a surprisingly large amplitude for portfolios of common stocks (up to 8% per annum for the S&P500 taken as the benchmark), while most studies have emphasized related survival biases in performance of mutual and hedge funds for which the biases can be expected to be even larger. We use the CRSP database from 1926 to 2006 and analyze the running top 500 US capitalizations to demonstrate that this bias can account for a gross overestimation of performance metrics such as the Sharpe ratio as well as an underestimation of risk, as measured for instance by peak-to-valley drawdowns. We demonstrate the presence of a significant bias in the estimation of the survival and look-ahead biases studied in the literature. A general methodology to test the properties of investment strategies is advanced in terms of random strategies with similar investment constraints.

Statistics

Citations

3 citations in Web of Science®
5 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 11 Nov 2009
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:03 Faculty of Economics > Department of Banking and Finance
Dewey Decimal Classification:330 Economics
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:11 Nov 2009 06:00
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:38
Publisher:Institutional Investor
ISSN:0095-4918
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3905/JPM.2009.36.1.121
Related URLs:http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1922v1

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher