Practical Applications of A Performance Update—Hedge Funds versus Hedged Mutual Funds: An Examination of Equity Long—Short Funds

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Alternative Investments Pub Date : 2020-11-30 DOI:10.3905/jai.23.s1.037
David McCarthy, Brian M. Wong
{"title":"Practical Applications of A Performance Update—Hedge Funds versus Hedged Mutual Funds: An Examination of Equity Long—Short Funds","authors":"David McCarthy, Brian M. Wong","doi":"10.3905/jai.23.s1.037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practical Applications In A Performance Update—Hedge Funds versus Hedged Mutual Funds:An Examination of Equity Long–Short Funds. from the Fall 2020 issue of The Journal of Alternative Investments, authors David F. McCarthy (of D. F. McCarthy LLC in Stockbridge, MA) and Brian M. Wong (an independent consultant in Mamaroneck, NY) extend the research McCarthy began in 2014. At that time, McCarthy studied equity long–short mutual funds and compared them to hedge funds that use long–short strategies. He found that long–short mutual funds offered performance and equity exposures similar to those of hedge funds—but since the available data came from a short time period (January 2008—June 2013), the findings were preliminary. In the current study, McCarthy and Wong update the 2014 study with data through December 2019. They find that long–short funds still offer lower volatility and equity exposures similar to those of hedge funds. However, long–short funds perform slightly worse than hedge funds and much worse than the S&P 500 Index. They also generate negative alpha—and no individual long–short fund generated positive alpha during the study period. This is important information for financial advisors to share with clients who are interested in equity long–short funds.","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.23.s1.037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practical Applications In A Performance Update—Hedge Funds versus Hedged Mutual Funds:An Examination of Equity Long–Short Funds. from the Fall 2020 issue of The Journal of Alternative Investments, authors David F. McCarthy (of D. F. McCarthy LLC in Stockbridge, MA) and Brian M. Wong (an independent consultant in Mamaroneck, NY) extend the research McCarthy began in 2014. At that time, McCarthy studied equity long–short mutual funds and compared them to hedge funds that use long–short strategies. He found that long–short mutual funds offered performance and equity exposures similar to those of hedge funds—but since the available data came from a short time period (January 2008—June 2013), the findings were preliminary. In the current study, McCarthy and Wong update the 2014 study with data through December 2019. They find that long–short funds still offer lower volatility and equity exposures similar to those of hedge funds. However, long–short funds perform slightly worse than hedge funds and much worse than the S&P 500 Index. They also generate negative alpha—and no individual long–short fund generated positive alpha during the study period. This is important information for financial advisors to share with clients who are interested in equity long–short funds.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
业绩更新的实际应用——对冲基金与对冲共同基金:对股票多空基金的考察
业绩更新中的实际应用——对冲基金与对冲共同基金:对股票多空基金的考察。David F. McCarthy(马萨诸塞州斯托克布里奇d.f. McCarthy LLC的作者)和Brian M. Wong(纽约州马马罗内克的独立顾问)在《另类投资杂志》(the Journal of Alternative Investments) 2020年秋季刊上对McCarthy于2014年开始的研究进行了扩展。当时,麦卡锡研究了股票多空共同基金,并将它们与使用多空策略的对冲基金进行了比较。他发现,多空共同基金提供的业绩和股票敞口与对冲基金类似,但由于现有数据来自较短的时间段(2008年1月至2013年6月),因此研究结果只是初步的。在目前的研究中,麦卡锡和黄用截至2019年12月的数据更新了2014年的研究。他们发现,与对冲基金相比,多空基金的波动性和股票敞口仍较低。然而,多空基金的表现略逊于对冲基金,远逊于标准普尔500指数。在研究期间,它们也会产生负alpha,而且没有任何一只多空基金产生正alpha。这是财务顾问与对股票多空基金感兴趣的客户分享的重要信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
期刊最新文献
Commodity Futures and Trend Inflation Inflation Hedging Potential of Infrastructure Sector and Sub-Sector Returns—Evidence from Emerging Markets Listed Real Estate in a Multi-Asset World: Does It Add Value? Too Much of A Good Thing? Drawbacks of Stressing Measurement of Impact Investing Editor’s Letter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1