Chinese securities investment funds: the role of luck in performance

Purpose The Chinese fund market has witnessed significant developments in recent years. However, although there has been a range of studies assessing fund performance in developed industries, the rapidly developing fund industry in China has received very little attention. This study aims to examine the performance of open-end securities investment funds investing in Chinese domestic equity during the period May 2003 to September 2020. Specifically, applying a non-parametric bootstrap methodology from the literature on fund performance, the authors investigate the role of skill versus luck in this rapidly evolving investment funds industry. Design/methodology/approach This study evaluates the performance of Chinese equity securities investment funds from 2003–2020 using a bootstrap methodology to distinguish skill from luck in performance. The authors consider unconditional and conditional performance models. Findings The bootstrap methodology incorporates non-normality in the idiosyncratic risk of fund returns, which is a major drawback in “conventional” performance statistics. The evidence does not support the existence of “genuine” skilled fund managers. In addition, it indicates that poor performance is mainly attributable to bad stock picking skills. Practical implications The authors find that the top-ranked funds with positive abnormal performance are attributed to “good luck” not “good skill” while the negative abnormal performance of bottom funds is mainly due to “bad skill.” Therefore, sensible advice for most Chinese equity investors would be against trying to “pick winners funds” among Chinese securities investment funds but it would be recommended to avoid holding “losers.” At the present time, investors should consider other types of funds, such as index/tracker funds with lower transactions. In addition, less risk-averse investors may consider Chinese hedge funds [Zhao (2012)] or exchange-traded fund [Han (2012)]. Originality/value The paper makes several contributions to the literature. First, the authors examine a wide range (over 50) of risk-adjusted performance models, which account for both unconditional and conditional risk factors. The authors also control for the profitability and investment risks in Fama and French (2015). Second, the authors select the “best-fit” model across all risk-adjusted models examined and a single “best-fit” model from each of the three classes. Therefore, the bootstrap analysis, which is mainly based on the selected best-fit models, is more precise and robust. Third, the authors reduce the possibility that findings may be sample-period specific or may be a survivor (upward) biased. Fourth, the authors consider further analysis based on sub-periods and compare fund performance in different market conditions to provide more implications to investors and practitioners. Fifth, the authors carry out extensive robustness checks and show that the findings are robust in relation to different minimum fund histories and serial correlation and heteroscedasticity adjustments. Sixth, the authors use higher frequency weekly data to improve statistical estimation.