This article is based on the premise that forecasting mutual fund rankings on the basis of their historic performance record is a hazardous task. The authors evaluate the Morningstar star ratings as a selection criterion and explore whether other fund characteristics can improve the forecasting accuracy. They find that fund turnover and size are positively related to subsequent risk adjusted returns. It also appears that the funds with the higher tracking error rank more highly in the (risk adjusted) league tables. They conjecture that fund managers signal their skill by the aggressiveness with which they pursue their strategy. Equally important, funds with higher fees seem to earn just enough extra return to neutralize these extra expenses.
Read full abstract