Abstract
In the money management industry, there is a quiet controversy over who does a better job, Traditional Managers (Fundamentalists), or Quantitative Managers. This issue has been examined by Gruber (1996), and Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) and more recently by Zhao (2006) and Wermers, Yao and Zhao (2007) using mutual fund portfolios. We reexamine this issue using the Plan Sponsor Network Database (PSN), a survivorship free database, which reports on how managers actually manage investment portfolios with respect to both style and types of stock selection methods used. Our empirical results indicate that when examining performance purely attributable to the use of a distinct Primary Investment Process, only the Fundamental approach is shown to significantly add value. However, when examining marginal performance of a Secondary Process, over and above a Primary approach, no process adds value, and in fact some detract.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
