Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:24:59.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hindsight Effects in Dollar-Weighted Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2014

Simon Hayley
Simon Hayley*
Affiliation:
simon.hayley.1@city.ac.uk, Cass Business School, City University London, 106 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8TZ, United Kingdom.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A growing number of studies use dollar-weighted (DW) returns as evidence that bad timing substantially reduces investor returns, and that consequently the equity risk premium must be considerably lower than previously thought. This paper demonstrates that this method is subject to a hindsight effect (as prior returns influence levels of new investment) and derives a technique that corrects it. The results show that for mainstream U.S. equities, DW returns are low because of this hindsight effect (bad investor timing had very little impact). Thus, low DW returns do not imply that the risk premium is correspondingly low.

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 249 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2014 

References

Brav, A., and Gompers, P. A.. “Myth or Reality? The Long-Run Underperformance of Initial Public Offerings: Evidence from Venture and Non-Venture Capital-Backed Companies.” Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 1791–1821.Google Scholar
Clare, A., and Motson, N.. “Do UK Investors Buy at the Top and Sell at the Bottom?” Working Paper, City University London (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dichev, I. D. “What Are Stock Investors’ Actual Historical Returns? Evidence from Dollar-Weighted Returns.” American Economic Review, 97 (2007), 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dichev, I. D., and Yu, G.. “Higher Risk, Lower Returns: What Hedge Fund Investors Really Earn.” Journal of Financial Economics, 100 (2011), 248–263.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. C., and Sapp, T. R. A.. “Mutual Fund Flows and Investor Returns: An Empirical Examination of Fund Investor Timing Ability.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 31 (2007), 2796–2816.Google Scholar
Hayley, S. “Value Averaging and the Automated Bias of Performance Measures.” Working Paper, City University London, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstractsssss=1606347 (2010).Google Scholar
Ingersoll, J.; Spiegel, M.; Goetzmann, W.; and Welch, I.. “Portfolio Performance Manipulation and Manipulation-Proof Performance Measures.” Review of Financial Studies, 20 (2007), 1503–1546.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964.” Journal of Finance, 23 (1968), 389–416.Google Scholar
Keswani, A., and Stolin, D.. “Dollar-Weighted Returns to Stock Investors: A New Look at the Evidence.” Finance Research Letters, 5 (2008), 228–235.Google Scholar
Loughran, T., and Ritter, J. R.. “The New Issues Puzzle.” Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 23–51.Google Scholar
Peasnell, K. V. “Some Formal Connections between Economic Values and Yields and Accounting Numbers.” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 9 (1982), 361–381.Google Scholar
Phalippou, L. “The Hazards of Using IRR to Measure Performance: The Case of Private Equity.” Journal of Performance Measurement, 12 (2008), 55–66.Google Scholar
Ritter, J. “The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1991), 3–27.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. “Pseudo Market Timing and the Long-Run Underperformance of IPOs.” Journal of Finance, 63 (2003), 483–517.Google Scholar
Sharpe, W. F. “Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Business, 39 (1966), 119–138.Google Scholar
Shiller, R. J. Irrational Exuberance, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (2005).Google Scholar