Reassessing False Discoveries in Mutual Fund Performance: Skill, Luck, or Lack of Power? A Reply

Laurent Barras,Olivier Scaillet,Russell R. Wermers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3439231
2019-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Andrikogiannopoulou and Papakonstantinou (AP) call into question the applicability of the False Discovery Rate (FDR) for evaluating mutual fund performance. They argue that this approach produces estimators of the proportions of zero and non-zero alpha funds that are largely biased. In this reply, we explain that the bias reported by AP is overestimated because their simulation analysis suffers from three shortcomings: (i) their assumed level of fund volatility, (ii) their assumed relations between the fund parameters, and (iii) their estimation procedure. When we address these issues, the probability of misclassifying a fund with a 2% annual alpha is not 65%, as AP claim, but only 29%. Given these results and the multiple advantages of the FDR approach, we remain convinced that it is useful in mutual fund performance evaluation and in other research areas in finance and economics involving large-scale multiple hypothesis tests.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?