Referee report for economics manuscript essay

“Different Risk-Adjusted Finance Performance Measures: A Comparison”

Summary This paper examines various risk-adjusted performance procedures for a set of mutual money. The writers argue that efficiency measures depending on Value-at-Risk (VaR) or Severe Value Theory (EVT) are more appropriate than any other popular efficiency measures including the Sharpe ratio (SR), the Treynor index (TI) or Jensen´s First (JA). They propose a performance index similar to the SR and the TI based on deficits calculated through VaR together with EVT.

They will find that EVT-VaR measures are definitely more appropriate inside the presence of non-normal data.

Main Feedback The topic of the paper is of relevance intended for financial professionals as well as academics and it is absolutely applicable to the present financial steadiness context. The paper is usually generally wellwritten. However , I possess some remarks for its improvement. 1 . The contribution in the paper is not evidently stated. In the 6th passage of the launch, the experts suggest that their particular main contribution is the structure of a performance index based on EVT-VAR.

However , it is far from very clear for what reason the new recommended measure needs to be better in relation to existing measures as it is at this point explained. It is true that VaR or EVT should be more reliable actions for extreme events when looking at method (13) not necessarily apparent why this assess should be very reliable than the traditional measures. The denominator offers, in fact , a great “extreme return” as opposed to the SR or USTED which have purely second moments, so it is not very straight forward to relate these measures.

A more satisfactory job should be done in explaining the implications of such VaR based measure, how it relates to additional measures and why it must be better. 2 . Why have measures recently been compared simply in a “static” way? It is widely known inside the finance literature that property return unpredictability is time-varying, and to some degree, also predicted returns.

It could be possible to go around the latter by arguing market efficiency (which is also questionable) but it is undoubtedly much more challenging to argue against time-variability of the standard change in the VaR measures (or in the SOCIAL FEAR and USTED ratios). This will be significant as the “good” or perhaps “bad” applicability of a particular performance evaluate could be test dependent so that as it is now with unconditional measures, this is hard to uncover. As an example, while the experts account for nonnormality of comes back in the modified-VaR measure using a Corner-Fisher quantile

they will assume a continuing standard change which means that in periods of high volatility they could still understate the VaR. And so at the minimum, the performance comparisons should be done intended for the full sample and different sub-samples and it should be tested whether the measures obtained are significantly different above different examples. 3. The authors give full attention to top 10 and bottom 15 funds because of their analysis and discarded the other funds “for the sake of simplicity”. Nevertheless , by choosing the particular “tail” money, the writers are supplying from the start an advantage to EVT or Va measures. It might be more appropriate to also survey results on (say) twelve “mid” money.

4. It is far from very clear so why the top 15 funds “show more departures from normality” in relation to lower part funds. This finding should be expanded as well as the intuition behind it should be better explained. You could argue that “losers” could be even more volatile than “winners” since the level of uncertainty with respect to the finance might boost which could cause more serious returns. Actually in the 3rd paragraph of the empirical consequence section it says “the bottom 12 funds include, in general, larger VaR ideals than the top ones, meaning that they are more susceptible to extreme events” which is somewhat contradictory with the discovering that the top 15 funds demonstrate more take-offs from normality.

Moreover, one of the primary findings in the study would be that the VaR and EVT performance measures work most effectively in relation to other measures when there are more departures from normality in returns. An improved attempt to get back together the results of nonnormality, the “winner vs . looser” funds plus the results on the performance measures with some prior studies or satisfactory intuition should be done.

Different comments 1 . The advantages of the daily news should be stated earlier in the conventional paper and not practically at the end with the introduction since it is now. The contributions needs to be clearer (see also stage 1 above) and should much better related to the current relevant books. 2 . The final outcome is too extended. The concluding remarks ought to be much shorter and should simply summarize the main findings and reconcile them with the issues elevated in the advantages as well as emphasize possible exts for long term work.

several. The dining tables should also be improved. They must have a brief description of the contents to facilitate studying. As it is now, the reader needs to constantly come back to the main text to find out the actual contents indicate. 4. The figures are hardly visible, they should end up being improved and a short justification should be presented.

one particular