440 likes | 570 Views
Some stylized facts of Russian private pension funds. Didenko Alexander International Financial Laboratory Alexander.didenko@gmail.com. Questions. W hat funds are efficient? What metrics to use? Is there any persistence? Do they inform customers about risks?
E N D
Some stylized facts of Russian private pension funds Didenko Alexander International Financial Laboratory Alexander.didenko@gmail.com
Questions • What funds are efficient? • What metrics to use? • Is there any persistence? • Do they inform customers about risks? • Do they have behavioral biases?
Dataset and methods • 30 quarters * 30 private pension funds • IIIQ’ 05 – IVQ’ 12 • Data Envelopment Analysis • Malmquist productivity index • T- and KS-tests • Granger causality
DEA - conceptual model Input 1 Output 1 Production Plans Input 2 Output 1 Input N Output 1
Data envelopment analysis • We have j DMUs • Which use v inputs x • To produce u outputs y • DEA-efficiency is defined as a ratio of a weighted sum of outputs to a weighted sum of inputs
Malmquist index • Decomposition of dynamic DEA to three components: • technical efficiency change on the best practice technologies • change in scale efficiency • technical change measured as a shift in the benchmark technology • which sum to total change
DEA – general model for funds Financial Capital Return Pension Funds Risk Market Share Human Capital
DEA – our specificaion Active return CVaR Pension Funds NAV Share E+R Ratio Diversification
CVaR • Wuertz, Chalabi, Chen, Ellis (2009); • RUPAI, RUPCI, RGBI • Alpha=0.05 • Weekly data • Average quarterly CVaR
Diversification • There are plenty of D. measures • We use that of Goetzmann, Kumar, 2008
H1. Funds convey useful info in names • “professionally-looking” terms to indicate attitude to risk • “Balanced” • “Aggressive”, • etc. • do funds really inform potential contributors about riskiness? • we classified funds by 5 categories of riskiness based on names • affinity between CVaRs distribution of 5 classes • affinity of random subsamples inside classes • two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Student’s t tests
Affinity of CVaR distributions • Classes 1, 2, 3 are way more homogeneous than any other class or total sample • Classes 1 and 3 are very close • Class 4 is similar to class 2 and class 3 • Only class 5 is REALLY different: • Distinctive both by T and KS measures • Homogeneous (after many resamplings)
H1. Busted/plausible? BUSTED!
H2. Are funds prone to herding? • We have information about aggregated portfolio structure • We can test for • Correlation • Granger causation • in changes of portfolio shares • Between funds and between quartiles of capitalization/efficiency
We tested the same for: • Malmquist efficiency quartiles • All 4 submeasures • No result • Matrix of granger causation for randomly generated matrices with same proportions, means, sd’s • Results are similar to real granger-causation matrices
H2. Herding/!Herding? PLAUSIBLE
What specification to use? • DRS, VRS, IRS, CRS, FDH? • Input/output/two-way? • We want to have some predictable measure • to have good logit-regression, we need sample with some funds efficient and some – not • too much “efficiency” => bad
Malmquist productivity • Same questions about specification • For our results be comparable • we have to use the same set of specifications for DEA and Malmquist productivity
Window dressing? Wow!
H2. Funds do not window-dress? PLAUSIBLE