Style Analysis and Classification of Hedge Funds

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arik Ben Dor ◽  
Lev. Dynkin ◽  
Anthony Gould
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Oberuc ◽  
Richard Oberuc
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
William R. McCumber ◽  
Jyotsaana Parajuli

This chapter explores the degree to which hedge funds’ performance is attributable to a self-declared style that broadly describes managers’ primary investment focus. Hedge funds’ self-declared styles and strategies are meant to be descriptive and to attract investor capital seeking exposure to that strategy and opportunity. Hedge fund strategies have evolved as managers uncover and exploit new opportunities. In practice, even when a majority of investor capital is dedicated to a primary strategy, managers complement a primary strategy with other positions in an attempt to earn positive returns. The freedom with which managers can operate regarding regulation and the breadth of financial instruments available make long-term and clear categorization of hedge fund styles difficult. Although research shows that many funds consistently deliver superior returns in a given style, many also deliver alpha, a positive return that is not attributable to any style or risk factor.


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Agarwal ◽  
N Y Naik
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Marcus Deetz

With the implementation of the 2-step approach according to Vesanto & Alhoniemi (2000), this article extends the procedure of visual evaluation of the Kohonen Maps usually chosen in the hedge fund literature for classification with Self-Organizing Maps. It introduces an automated procedure which guarantees a consistent combination of adjacent output units and thus an objective classification. The practical application of this method results in a reduction of the strategy groups specified by the database. This is also accompanied by a significant reduction in the Davies Bouldin Index (DBI) of the SOM partitions. Since a small dispersion within the clusters and large distances between the clusters lead to small DBIs, a minimization of this measure is desired. This significantly better partitioning of SOMs in comparison to the classification of hedge funds into the categorization scheme specified by the database provider can be observed in all examined data samples (robustness analyses). Ultimately, none of the original 23 strategy groups can be empirically validated. Furthermore, no stable classification can be found. Both the number of empirically determined categories (SOM clusters) and the composition of these clusters differ significantly in the subsamples examined. Thus the results essentially confirm the results and conclusions in the literature, according to which the original, self-classified strategy labels of the database providers are misleading and therefore do not contain any information content.


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 491-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haijie Weng ◽  
Stefan Trück

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document