JFRM  Vol.1 No.3 , September 2012
Portfolio Risk Management Implications of Mutual Fund Investment Objective Classifications
Abstract: I examine portfolio risk management implications of using hypothetical investment returns from a sample of mutual funds in a variety of investment objective classifications to select mutual funds. While early research supported this practice by showing that risk is homogeneous within investment objective groups and heterogeneous between groups, more recent research suggests that earlier findings are no longer true. Research also suggests that load and no-load funds may exhibit risk differences. I examine whether risk is homogeneous within investment classification and heterogeneous between classes after controlling for potential load effects. Results reveal that significant risk differences exist even after controlling for the load structure of the fund and that those risk differences can have significant implications for portfolio risk management.
Cite this paper: Prather, L. (2012). Portfolio Risk Management Implications of Mutual Fund Investment Objective Classifications. Journal of Financial Risk Management, 1, 33-37. doi: 10.4236/jfrm.2012.13006.

[1]   Brown, K., & Brown, G. (1987). Does the composition of the market portfolio really matter? Journal of Portfolio Management, Winter, 26-32. doi:10.3905/jpm.1987.26

[2]   Brown, K., Harlow, W., & Starks, L. (1996). Of tournaments and temptations: an analysis of managerial incentives in the mutual fund industry. Journal of Finance, 51, 85-110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05203.x

[3]   Chordia, T. (1996). The structure of mutual fund charges. Journal of Financial Economics, 41, 3-39. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(95)00856-A

[4]   David, H. (1952). Upper 5 and 1% points of the maximum F-ratio. Biometrika, 39, 422-24.

[5]   Goetzmann, W., & Peles, N. (1997). Cognitive dissonance and mutual fund investors. Journal of Financial Research, 20, 145-158.

[6]   Grinblatt, M., & Titman, S. (1989). Portfolio performance evaluation: old issues and new insights. Review of Financial Studies, 2, 393-421. doi:10.1093/rfs/2.3.393

[7]   Grinblatt, M., & Titman, S. (1992). The persistence of mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 47, 1977-84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04692.x

[8]   Grinblatt, M., & Titman, S. (1993). Performance measurement without benchmarks: an examination of mutual fund returns. Journal of Business, 66, 47-68. doi:10.1086/296593

[9]   Grinblatt, M., & Titman, S. (1994). A study of monthly mutual fund returns and performance evaluation techniques. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 29, 419-444. doi:10.2307/2331338

[10]   Ippolito, R. (1992). Consumer reaction to measures of poor quality: evidence from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 35, 45-70. doi:10.1086/467244

[11]   Klemkosky, R. (1976). Additional evidence on the risk level discriminatory powers of the Weisenberger classifications. Journal of Business, 45, 48-50. doi:10.1086/295804

[12]   Lehmann, B., & Modest, D. (1987). Mutual fund performance evaluation: a comparison of benchmarks and benchmark comparisons. Journal of Finance, 42, 233-265. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb02566.x

[13]   Malhotra, D., & McLeod, R. (1997). An empirical analysis of mutual fund expenses. Journal of Financial Research, 20, 175-190.

[14]   Najand, M., & Prather, L. (1999). The risk level discriminatory power of mutual fund investment objectives: additional evidence. Journal of Financial Markets, 2, 307-28. doi:10.1016/S1386-4181(99)00002-6

[15]   Sharpe, W. (1966). Mutual fund performance. Journal of Business, 39,119-38. doi:10.1086/294846

[16]   Sirri, E., & Tufano, P. (1998). Costly search and mutual fund flows. Journal of Finance, 53, 1589-1622. doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00066