Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A meta-measure of performance related to both investors and investments characteristics

  • S.I.: Risk Management Decisions and Value under Uncertainty
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 26 August 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

We introduce hereafter a new flexible meta-measurement of portfolio performance, called the Generalized Utility-based N-moment measure, relying both on a characterization of the whole return distribution and on the set of preferences of the investor, which is adapted to analyze the performance of hedge funds. It could also serve as the basis of a Fraudulent Behavior Index aiming to detect fraudulent funds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. See also Markowitz (2014) for a complete survey.

  2. See Kolm et al. (2014) for the main trends on applications in operational research for portfolio optimizations.

  3. See also, for instance, Cherny and Madan (2009), Capocci (2009), Darolles et al. (2009), Jha et al. (2009), Jiang and Zhu (2009), Stavetski (2009), Zakamouline and Koekebakker (2009), Darolles and Gouriéroux (2010), Glawischnig and Sommersguter-Reichmannn (2010), Billio et al. (2012, 2013, 2015), Joenväärä et al. (2013), Cremers et al. (2013), Smetters and Zhang (2014), Kadan and Liu (2014), Ferson and Lin (2014) and Brown et al. (2010). To our best knowledge, the most comprehensive works dedicated to performance assessment, published in the two last decades, are those of Knight and Satchell (2002), Amenc and Lesourd (2003), Aftalion and Poncet (2003), Le Sourd (2007), Bacon (2008a, b), Cogneau and Hübner (2009a, b), Fischer and Wermers (2012), and Caporin et al. (2014).

  4. See, for instance, the controversy about the consistency of the Sharpe and Omega ratio and the second-order stochastic dominance criterion (Cf. Hodges 1998; Fong 2016; Balder and Schweizer 2017; Klar and Müeller 2018; Caporin et al. 2018; Bi et al. 2019).

  5. See Kimball (1990, 1992, 1993) and Scott and Horvath (1980).

  6. And when we also know that the Keating and Shadwick (2002) Omega measure, in some sense, disregards risk—see Caporin et al. (2018).

  7. Called Gram–Charlier type A, Edgeworth, Mac Laurin or Taylor expansion, depending on the field, context, ways of regrouping terms, and reference function or distribution.

  8. See, e.g., Jarrow and Rudd (1982), Corrado and Su (1996), Bakshi et al. (1997), Bakshi and Madan (2000), Jondeau and Rockinger (2001), Jurczenko et al. (2004), Martin et al. (2005), Lim et al. (2006), Corrado (2007), León et al. (2009), Andreou et al. (2010), Jha and Kalimipalli (2010), Tanaka et al. (2010), Del Brio and Perote (2012), Schlögl (2013), Chateau (2014) and Lin et al. (2015).

  9. See, e.g., Arrow (1964), Feldstein (1969), Samuelson (1970), Jean (1971, 1973), Arditti and Levy (1972), Rubinstein (1973), Borch (1974), Ingersoll (1975), Loistl (1976), Simkowitz and Beedles (1978), Levy and Markowitz (1979), Scott and Horvath (1980), Pulley (1983), Kroll et al. (1984), Dittmar (2002), Briec et al. (2007) and Martellini and Ziemann (2010). See also Jurczenko and Maillet (2006) for further references.

  10. We refere here to the survey by Jurczenko and Maillet (2006) on the theoretical foundations of a mean–variance–skewness–kurtosis decision criterion, discussing the conditions of convergence and the potential drawbacks of expansions.

  11. We refere here to the survey by Jurczenko and Maillet (2006) on the theoretical foundations of a mean–variance–skewness–kurtosis decision criterion, discussing the conditions of convergence and the potential drawbacks of expansions.

  12. Please see our Web Appendix C (available on demand to the authors) for a list of the main utility functions expressed with the first four moments of returns and a table of elements’ decomposition. Note here that \( U_{i}^{\left( 0 \right)} \left( . \right) = U_{i}^{{}} \left( . \right) \) per convention, and that the term in \( U_{i}^{\left( 1 \right)} \left( . \right) \) disappears since E [rp − m1, p (rp)] = 0 per definition. Pre-multiplying the first term (in \( U_{i}^{{}} \left( . \right) \)) by m1,p(rp)−1(for a non null mean), leads to the artificial but compact form of the following Eq. (5) with (1) a sum of terms with n = 1 to N, whilst (2) the sum of terms goes from n = 0 to N in Eqs. (1) and (3) the Jensen inequality residual term in Eq. (10) below such as:

    \( \tilde{\xi }_{p} = \mathop \sum \limits_{n = 2}^{N} \left( {n!} \right)^{ - 1} U_{i}^{\left( n \right)} \left[ {E\left( {r_{p} } \right)} \right]\left[ {r_{p} - E\left( {r_{p} } \right)} \right]^{n} + \tilde{\varepsilon }_{N + 1} \left( {r_{p} } \right), \)

    with a sum of terms going from n = 2 to N.

  13. In our Web Appendix K (available on demand to the authors), we have checked the accuracy of this expression with the main utility functions, using the first four moments of returns and a coefficient of risk aversion (a) equal to 3.

  14. See our Web Appendix C (available on demand to the authors) for a decomposition of special cases of the HARA class, such as utility functions belonging to the CARA and CRRA classes.

  15. Some interesting related works, however, also show that the ratio \( \left[ {U_{i}^{\left( 3 \right)} \left( . \right)/U_{i}^{\left( 1 \right)} \left( . \right)} \right] \) is also linked to a risk aversion characteristic of a rational agent, who makes an arbitrage between the first and the third moments (Cf. Crainich and Eeckhoudt 2008).

  16. Lajeri-Chaherli (2004) proposes an expansion to the order five, mentioning the fifth-order risk as being the “edginess”, whilst Caballé and Pomansky (1996) refine even further the expansion to the N-th order, referring to the “risk aversion of order N”, as an analogue to the traditional classical Absolute Risk Aversion (see also Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger 2006).

  17. Please refer to our Web Appendix C (available on demand to the authors) for a decomposition to the fourth moment of the most common utility functions.

  18. Because the measure is merely applied both to homogeneous investments and for similar individuals.

  19. There also exists a link between the new Generalized Utility-based N-moment measure of performance and the Cumulative Prospect Theory when considering the investor’s sensitivities as modified (subjective) probabilities associated with the distribution of non-distorted returns.

  20. Our measure, following Billio et al. (2013), shares some similarities with the (Nth order) General Ranking Measure (see Smetters and Zhang 2014, p. 9).

  21. See Eq. (8) for the precise expressions of the λn,i in the case of a HARA-type of utility function (and to our Web Appendix C—available on demand to the authors, for a decomposition to the fourth moment of the most common utility functions.

  22. Note here that these measures belong to one of the four main families of performance measures identified in the survey of Caporin et al. (2014).

  23. See our Web Appendix B (available on demand to the authors) for a full sketch of the algorithm.

  24. Results for an illustration of Iso-MPPM curves when considering over-skewness and over-performance are available upon request.

  25. Table 1 is an exact replication of Table 5 (on page 1534) in Ingersoll et al. (2007), using their simulation scheme. See also our Web Appendix E for more details (available on demand to the authors).

  26. We first start by defining a “neutral” agent for whom the scalar products, respectively, between the first four sensitivities and the first four average moments of the studied sample are strictly identical. Secondly, we specify four different categories of investors characterized by a high sensitivity to only one of the four moments (ceteris paribus). More precisely, we have a greedy investor, denoted GUN4,G,p, who is focused on the mean, a risk-averse agent, named GUN4,RA,p, with a high sensitivity to the variance, a prudent one, called GUN4,P,p, characterized by a significant preference to the third moment and a very temperate investor, alias GUN4,T,p, who severely dislikes the fourth moment (Cf. Caporin et al. 2014, for the definition of the different performance measures used in the following tables).

  27. Using the same hypothesis defined in Ingersoll et al. (2007), we compute the Jensen (1968) alpha assuming a systematic risk sensitivity of informed and uninformed managers’ portfolios equal to 1.

  28. Table 2 is also an exact replication of Table 6 (on page 1535) in Ingersoll et al. (2007), using their simulation scheme. See also our Web Appendix F (available on demand to the authors) for more details.

  29. The 30 ranked portfolios correspond, as a mere illustration, to a random sample of 15 informed and 15 uninformed managers whose portfolio returns respect the simulation scheme defined in Table 1 (Cf. Ingersoll et al. 2007). For each measure of performance in this table, the value and rank of funds are reported in the various columns of Panel A. Funds are sorted according to their Sharpe ratios (first two columns). Then, for the other measures (following columns), related relative ranks are presented. For instance, the highest Sharpe ratio fund is also the best, according to the Jensen, MPPM2 and MPPM3 measures, whilst it is the third fund in terms of Sharpe, which the best according to the MPPM4 measure, and the 20th fund for the MPPM5. In this sample also, the 30th fund is the worst fund, whatever the measure.

  30. The 30 ranked portfolios correspond to 15 informed and 15 uninformed managers whose portfolio returns respect the simulation scheme defined in Table 1 (Cf. Ingersoll et al. 2007).

References

  • Afriat, S. (1967). The construction of utility functions from expenditure data. International Economic Review, 8(1), 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amenc, N., & Lesourd, V. (2003). Portfolio theory and performance analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreou, P., Charalambous, C., & Martzoukos, S. (2010). Generalized parameter functions for option pricing. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(3), 633–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardia, D., & Boudt, K. (2018). The peer performance ratios of hedge funds. Journal of Banking & Finance, 87, 351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardia, D., Boudt, K., & Nguyen, G. (2018). Beyond risk-based portfolios: balancing performance and risk contributions in asset allocation. Quantitative Finance, 18(8), 1249–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti, F., & Levy, H. (1972). Distribution moments and equilibrium: A comment. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 7(1), 1429–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1964). The role of securities in the optimal allocation of risk-bearing. Review of Economic Studies, 31(2), 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, C. (2008a). How sharp is the Sharpe ratio? Risk-adjusted performance measures. White Paper 2008, Statpro.

  • Bacon, C. (2008b). Practical portfolio performance measurement and attribution. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakshi, G., Cao, C., & Chen, Z. (1997). Empirical performance of alternative option pricing models. Journal of Finance, 52(5), 2003–2049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakshi, G., & Madan, D. (2000). Spanning and derivative-security valuation. Journal of Financial Economics, 55(2), 205–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balder, S., & Schweizer, N. (2017). Risk aversion vs. the omega ratio: Consistency results. Finance Research Letters, 21, 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, D., & Dennis, K. (1952). The conditions under which Gram-Charlier and Edgeworth curves are positive definite and unimodal. Biometrika, 39(3–4), 425–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C., & Boyle, P. (2009). Mr. Madoff’s amazing returns: An analysis of the split-strike conversion strategy. Journal of Derivatives, 17(1), 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, Ph, Mekkaoui, El, de Freitas, N., & Maillet, B. (2019). A financial fraud detection indicators for investors: An idea. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03360-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, H., Huang, R., Tzeng, L., & Zhu, W. (2019). Higher-order omega: A performance index with a decision-theoretic foundation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 100, 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billio, M., Caporin, M., & Costola, M. (2015). Backward/forward optimal combination of performance measures for equity screening. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 34, 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billio, M., Getmansky, M., & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Dynamic risk exposures in hedge funds. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(11), 3517–3532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billio, M., Jannin, G., Maillet, B., & Pelizzon, L. (2013). Portfolio performance measure and a new generalized utility-based n-moment measure. Working Paper #2013-22, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.

  • Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borch, K. (1974). The rationale of the mean-standard deviation analysis: Comment. American Economic Review, 64(3), 428–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briec, W., Kerstens, K., & Jokung, O. (2007). Mean–variance-skewness portfolio performance gauging: A general shortage function and dual approach. Management Science, 53(1), 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., Kang, M., In, F., & Lee, G. (2010). Resisting the Manipulation of Performance Metrics: An Empirical Analysis of the Manipulation-Proof Performance Measure. New York University Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1536323.

  • Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballé, J., & Pomansky, A. (1996). Mixed risk aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 71(2), 485–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capocci, D. (2009). The persistence in hedge fund performance: Extended analysis. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 14(2), 233–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporin, M., Costola, M., Jannin, G., & Maillet, B. (2018). On the (ab)use of omega? Journal of Empirical Finance, 46, 11–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporin, M., Jannin, G., Lisi, F., & Maillet, B. (2014). A survey on the four families of performance measures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(5), 917–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chateau, J.-P. (2014). Valuing european put options under skewness and increasing [excess] kurtosis. Journal of Mathematical Finance, 4(3), 160–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, P., Lin, Z., & Liu, Y. (2017). Characteristics of long-run return and risk: A unified performance metric. Journal of Real Estate Research, 39(2), 165–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherny, A., & Madan, D. (2009). New measures for performance evaluation. Review of Financial Studies, 22(7), 2571–2606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogneau, P., & Hübner, G. (2009a). The (more than) 100 ways to measure portfolio performance. Part 1: Standardized risk-adjusted measures. Journal of Performance Measurement, 13(4), 56–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogneau, P., & Hübner, G. (2009b). The (more than) 100 ways to measure portfolio performance. Part 2: Special measures and comparison. Journal of Performance Measurement, 14(1), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, C. (2007). The hidden martingale restriction in Gram-Charlier option prices. Journal of Futures Markets, 27(3), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, C., & Su, T. (1996). Skewness and kurtosis in SP 500 index returns implied by option prices. Journal of Financial Research, 19(2), 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coudert, V., & Gex, M. (2008). Does risk aversion drive financial crises? Testing the predictive power of empirical indicators. Journal of Empirical Finance, 15(2), 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crainich, D., & Eeckhoudt, L. (2008). On the intensity of downside risk aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, H. (1972). On the history of certain expansions used in mathematical statistics. Biometrika, 59(1), 205–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremers, M., Petajisto, A., & Zitzewitz, E. (2013). Should benchmark indices have alpha? Revisiting performance evaluation. Critical Finance Review, 2(1), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darolles, S., & Gouriéroux, Ch. (2010). Conditionally fitted Sharpe performance with an application to hedge fund rating. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(3), 578–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darolles, S., Gouriéroux, & Jasiak, J. (2009). L-performance with an application to hedge funds. Journal of Empirical Finance, 16(4), 671–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dávila, E. (2011). Myopic portfolio choice with higher cumulants. Working Paper #111656, Harvard University.

  • De Palma, A., & Prigent, J.-L. (2008). Utilitarism and fairness in portfolio positioning. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(2), 1648–1660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Brio, E., & Perote, J. (2012). Gram-Charlier densities: Maximum likelihood versus the method of moments. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 51(3), 531–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittmar, R. (2002). Nonlinear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and evidence from the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 369–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, Ch., & Schneider, T. (1995). Risk-aversion, prudence and temperance: A unified approach. Economics Letters, 48(3–4), 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhoudt, L., & Schlesinger, H. (2006). Putting risk in its proper place. American Economic Review, 96(1), 280–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fays, B., Hübner, G., & Lambert, M. (2018). Gamma trading skills in hedge funds. EDHEC working paper.

  • Feldstein, M. (1969). Mean-variance analysis in the theory of liquidity preference and portfolio selection. Review of Economic Studies, 36(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferson, W., & Lin, L. (2014). Alpha and performance measurement: The effects of investor disagreement and heterogeneity. Journal of Finance, 69(4), 1565–1596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B., & Wermers, R. (2012). Performance evaluation and attribution of security portfolios. Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, W. (2016). Stochastic dominance and the omega ratio. Finance Research Letters, 17, 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garlappi, L., & Skoulakis, G. (2011). Taylor series approximations to expected utility and optimal portfolio choice. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 5(2), 121–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glawischnig, M., & Sommersguter-Reichmannn, M. (2010). Assessing the performance of alternative investments using non-parametric efficiency measurement approaches: Is it convincing? Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(2), 295–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hald, A. (1981). T. N. Thiele’s contributions to statistics. International Statistical Review, 49(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hald, A. (2000). The early history of the cumulants and the Gram-Charlier series. International Statistical Review, 68(2), 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, H. (1920). Uber eine erweiterung des steltjesschen moment problems. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 7, 235–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, D., Patel, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (1993). Hot hands in mutual funds: Short-run persistence of relative performance, 1974–1988. Journal of Finance, 48(1), 93–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson, R., & Merton, R. (1981). On market timing and investment performance. II. Statistical procedures for evaluating forecasting skills. Journal of Business, 54(4), 513–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlawitschka, W. (1994). The empirical nature of Taylor-series approximations to expected utility. American Economic Review, 84(3), 713–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, S. (1998). A generalization of the Sharpe ratio and its applications to valuation bounds and risk measures. Financial options research centre. Working Paper #1998-88, University of Warwick.

  • Houthakker, H. (1950). Revealed preference and the utility function. Economica, 17(66), 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingersoll, J. (1975). Multi-dimensional security pricing. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 10(5), 785–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingersoll, J., Spiegel, M., Goetzmann, W., & Welch, I. (2007). Portfolio performance manipulation and manipulation-proof performance measures. Review of Financial Studies, 20(5), 1503–1546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrow, R., & Rudd, A. (1982). Approximate option valuation for arbitrary stochastic processes. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 10(3), 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean, W. (1971). The extension of portfolio analysis to three or more parameters. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6(1), 505–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean, W. (1973). More on multi-dimensional portfolio analysis. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 8(3), 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (1968). The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945-1964. Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, R., & Kalimipalli, M. (2010). The economic significance of conditional skewness forecasts in option markets. Journal of Futures Markets, 30(4), 378–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, R., Korkie, B., & Turtle, H. (2009). Measuring performance in a dynamic world: Conditional mean-variance fundamentals. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(10), 1851–1859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, G., & Zhu, K. (2009). Generalized Sharpe ratios: performance measures focusing on downside risk. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 30, 132–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joenväärä, J., Klemelä, J., & Kosowski, R. (2013). The economic value and statistical properties of manipulation-proof performance measures. Imperial College of London, working paper.

  • Jondeau, E., & Rockinger, M. (2001). Gram-Charlier densities. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(10), 1457–1483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jondeau, E., & Rockinger, M. (2006). Optimal portfolio allocation under higher moments. European Financial Management, 12(1), 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurczenko, E., & Maillet, B. (2006). Theoretical foundations of asset allocation and pricing models with higher-order moments. In E. Jurczenko & B. Maillet (Eds.), Chap. in Multi-moment Asset Allocation and Pricing Models (pp. 1–36). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurczenko, E., Maillet, B., & Negrea, B. (2004). A note on skewness and kurtosis adjusted option pricing models under the martingale restriction. Quantitative Finance, 4(5), 479–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadan, O., & Liu, F. (2014). Performance evaluation with high moments and disaster risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 113(1), 131–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, C., & Shadwick, W. (2002). A universal performance measure. Journal of Performance Measurement, 6(3), 59–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. (1990). Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 58(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. (1992). Precautionary motives for holding assets. Working Paper #3586, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kimball, M. (1993). Standard risk aversion. Econometrica, 61(3), 589–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klar, B., & Müeller, A. (2018). On consistency of the omega ratio with stochastic dominance rules. Chapter 14 in Innovations in Insurance, Risk and Asset Management, World Scientific, Singapore (pp. 367–380).

  • Knight, J., & Satchell, S. (2002). Performance measurement in finance. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, P., Tütüncü, R., & Fabozzi, F. (2014). 60 Years of portfolio optimization: Practical challenges and current trends. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2), 356–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, Y., Levy, H., & Markowitz, H. (1984). Mean-variance versus direct utility maximization. Journal of Finance, 39(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajeri-Chaherli, F. (2004). Proper prudence, standard prudence and precautionary vulnerability. Economics Letters, 82(1), 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Sourd, V. (2007). Performance measurement for traditional investment. Working Paper #2007-01, EDHEC Risk and Asset Management Research Centre.

  • León, A., Menca, J., & Sentana, E. (2009). Parametric properties of semi-nonparametric distribution, with application to option valuation. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 27(2), 176–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H., & Markowitz, H. (1979). Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. American Economic Review, 69(3), 308–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lhabitant, F.-S. (1997). On the (ab)use of expected utility approximations for portfolio selection and portfolio performance. Working paper, HEC University of Lausanne.

  • Lim, G., Martin, G., & Martin, V. (2006). Pricing currency options in the presence of time-varying volatility and non-normalities. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 16(3), 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S.-H., Huang, H.-H., & Li, S.-H. (2015). Option pricing under truncated Gram-Charlier expansion. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 32(1), 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, I. (1949). A Reformulation of the theory of consumer’s behaviour. Oxford Economic Papers, 1(1), 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loistl, O. (1976). The erroneous approximation of expected utility by means of a Taylor’s series expansion: Analytic and computational results. American Economic Review, 66(5), 904–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (2014). Mean–variance approximations to expected utility. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2), 346–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martellini, L., & Ziemann, V. (2010). Improved estimates of higher-order comoments and implications for portfolio selection. Review of Financial Studies, 23(4), 1467–1502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, V., Martin, G., & Lim, G. (2005). Parametric pricing of higher order moments in SP500 options. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(3), 377–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes, C., & Wang, X. (2005). Increasing outer risk. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 41(7), 875–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misina, M. (2003). What does the risk-appetite index measure? Working paper, Bank of Canada.

  • Morningstar. (2002). The new Morningstar rating™ methodology. Report #22/04/02, Morningstar Research Centre.

  • Powell, A., Ratha, D., & Mohapatra, S. (2002). Capital inflows and capital outflows: Measurement, determinants, consequences. Working paper #2012-07, University of Torcuato Di Tella.

  • Pulley, L. (1983). Mean-variance approximations to expected logarithmic utility. Operations Research, 31(4), 685–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, M. (1973). The fundamental theorem of parameter-preference security valuation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 8(1), 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica, 5(17), 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1970). The fundamental approximation theorem of portfolio analysis in terms of means, variances and higher moments. Review of Economic Studies, 37(4), 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlögl, E. (2013). Option pricing where the underlying assets follow a Gram/Charlier density of arbitrary order. Journal of Hydrology, 37(3), 611–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R., & Horvath, P. (1980). On the direction of preference for moments of higher order than the variance. Journal of Finance, 35(4), 915–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, W. (1966). Mutual fund performance. Journal of Business, 39(S1), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simkowitz, M., & Beedles, W. (1978). Diversification in a three-moment world. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 13(5), 927–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smetters, K., & Zhang, X. (2014). A sharper ratio: A general measure for correctly ranking non-normal investment risks. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Stavetski, E. (2009). Managing hedge fund managers: Quantitative and qualitative performance measures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanov, J. (2000). Krein condition in probabilistic moment problems. Bernoulli, 6(5), 939–949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, K., Yamada, T., & Watanabe, T. (2010). Applications of Gram-Charlier expansion and bond moments for pricing of interest rates and credit risk. Quantitative Finance, 10(6), 645–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treynor, J., & Mazuy, K. (1966). Can mutual funds outguess the market? Harvard Business Review, 44, 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiang, S. (1972). The rationale of the mean-standard deviation analysis, skewness preference, and the demand for money. American Economic Review, 62(3), 354–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakamouline, V., & Koekebakker, S. (2009). Portfolio performance evaluation with generalized Sharpe ratios: Beyond the mean and variance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(7), 1242–1254.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Philippe Bertrand, Stephen Brown, Massimiliano Caporin, Benjamin Hamidi, Georges Hübner, Christophe Hurlin, Leónid Kagan, Robert Kosowski, Patrick Kouontchou, Jan Pieter Krahnen, Patrice Poncet, Jean-Luc Prigent, Thierry Roncalli, Olivier Scaillet, Christian Schlag, Kent Smetters and Spyridon Vrontos for suggestions, help and encouragements when preparing this article. We are also grateful to the participants to the Vth Conference on Computational and Financial Econometrics, the XIth Conference on Advances in Financial Econometrics, the Quantitative Finance Seminar at the University of Padua (Padova, April 2013), the VIIth IRMC, and the Finance Seminar at the SAFE Goethe University of Frankfurt (Frankfurt, October 2014) for valuable comments. We also greatly thank here Gregory Jannin for some previous intensive collaborations on this topic, and Zhining Yuan for research assistance. Pelizzon also thanks the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE for financially sponsoring this research. A previous preliminary version circulated under the title “Portfolio Performance Measure…” (Cf. Billio et al. 2013). Resources linked to this article are available on: www.performance-metrics.eu. The general disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ca’ Foscari Univ. and GRETA, Venice, Italy

    Monica Billio

  2. emlyon business school (AIM QUANT Research Center), Paris, France

    Bertrand Maillet

  3. Univ. La Reunion, Saint-Denis, France

    Bertrand Maillet

  4. Variances, Paris, France

    Bertrand Maillet

  5. Leibniz Institute SAFE and Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Loriana Pelizzon

Authors
  1. Monica Billio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bertrand Maillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Loriana Pelizzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand Maillet.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Billio, M., Maillet, B. & Pelizzon, L. A meta-measure of performance related to both investors and investments characteristics. Ann Oper Res 313, 1405–1447 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03771-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03771-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation