<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CXO Advisory &#187; Mutual/Hedge Funds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/mutual-hedge-funds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:21:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Hedge Fund Risk and Return [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/19007/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-risk-and-return/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/19007/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-risk-and-return/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=19007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do hedge funds trade on market risk, idiosyncratic risk or tail risk? In their November 2011 paper entitled &#8220;Systematic Risk and the Cross-Section of Hedge Fund Returns&#8221;, Turan Bali, Stephen Brown and Mustafa Caglayan explore the predictability of hedge fund returns based on distinct market-related (systematic), idiosyncratic (residual) and tail risk measures. They alternatively consider four-factor <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/19007/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-risk-and-return/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/19007/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-risk-and-return/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Active Beats Buy-and-Hold? [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/17502/individual-investing/active-beats-buy-and-hold/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/17502/individual-investing/active-beats-buy-and-hold/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:07:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Individual Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Momentum Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=17502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do individuals who actively reallocate funds within their pension accounts outperform passive counterparts? In their October 2011 paper entitled &#8220;Individual Investor Activity and Performance&#8221;, Magnus Dahlquist, Jose Vicente Martinez and Paul Soderlind examine the activity and performance of individual participants in Sweden’s Premium Pension System. This system allows individual participants to reallocate among available mutual funds <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/17502/individual-investing/active-beats-buy-and-hold/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/17502/individual-investing/active-beats-buy-and-hold/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SweetSpot: Market-beating Reversion of Unloved Niches?</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16343/technical-trading/sweetspot-market-beating-reversion-of-unloved-niches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16343/technical-trading/sweetspot-market-beating-reversion-of-unloved-niches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technical Trading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=16343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A reader suggested reviewing the detailed track record of SweetSpot Investments LLC, consisting of 29 closed trades over the past 12 years. The basic SweetSpot strategy posits market-beating three-year reversion of the three least popular &#8220;sectors&#8221; out of 100 formed from 500 non-diversified mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETF). Popularity is a function of fund assets and prior-year <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16343/technical-trading/sweetspot-market-beating-reversion-of-unloved-niches/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16343/technical-trading/sweetspot-market-beating-reversion-of-unloved-niches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liquidity Risk Premium Dominant in Hedge Fund Returns?</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16077/mutual-hedge-funds/liquidity-risk-premium-dominant-in-hedge-fund-returns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16077/mutual-hedge-funds/liquidity-risk-premium-dominant-in-hedge-fund-returns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=16077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do hedge funds rely on off-the-beaten-track (illiquid) positions to fuel performance? In his April 2011 paper entitled &#8220;Hedge-Fund Performance and Liquidity Risk&#8221;, Ronnie Sadka investigates aggregate market liquidity as a predictor of hedge fund performance. His calculates liquidity based on trade-by-trade price impact estimated monthly for individual stocks and aggregated by averaging. Using net monthly returns <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16077/mutual-hedge-funds/liquidity-risk-premium-dominant-in-hedge-fund-returns/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/16077/mutual-hedge-funds/liquidity-risk-premium-dominant-in-hedge-fund-returns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Active ETF Performance [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/14846/investing-expertise/active-etf-performance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/14846/investing-expertise/active-etf-performance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Investing Expertise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=14846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do active exchange-traded funds (ETF), which realistically incorporate management costs and trading frictions, offer value to investors? In his June 2011 paper entitled &#8220;Active ETFs and Their Performance vis-à-vis Passive ETFs, Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds&#8221;, Panagiotis Schizas examines the returns and risks of the first active ETFs, including comparisons with alternative passive ETFs, mutual <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/14846/investing-expertise/active-etf-performance/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/14846/investing-expertise/active-etf-performance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Focus on the Most Intensely Active Mutual Funds? [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13870/mutual-hedge-funds/focus-on-the-most-intensely-active-mutual-funds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13870/mutual-hedge-funds/focus-on-the-most-intensely-active-mutual-funds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 10:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=13870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are many mutual fund managers worldwide so fixated on benchmarks that they substantially emulate index funds, while charging shareholders &#8220;active&#8221; fees? In the April 2011 version of their paper entitled &#8220;The Mutual Fund Industry Worldwide: Explicit and Closet Indexing, Fees, and Performance&#8221;, Martijn Cremers, Miguel Ferreira, Pedro Matos and Laura Starks address the prevalence and <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13870/mutual-hedge-funds/focus-on-the-most-intensely-active-mutual-funds/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13870/mutual-hedge-funds/focus-on-the-most-intensely-active-mutual-funds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hedge Fund Benchmark Bias? [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13493/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-benchmark-bias/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13493/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-benchmark-bias/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=13493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hedge fund databases are prone to: (1) self-selection bias (only good performers report); (2) backfill bias (only funds with good recent past performance retroactively report it); (3) survivorship bias (exclusion of dead fund performance); and; (4) liquidation bias (poor performers stop reporting but continue to operate for some period). Do hedge fund indexes therefore inaccurately <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13493/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-benchmark-bias/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13493/mutual-hedge-funds/hedge-fund-benchmark-bias/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taxonomy of Mutual Fund Fees, Expenses and Costs</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/6864/mutual-hedge-funds/taxonomy-of-mutual-fund-fees-expenses-and-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/6864/mutual-hedge-funds/taxonomy-of-mutual-fund-fees-expenses-and-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=6864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[...investors may want to consider all these fees, expenses and costs debited from fund assets as evidence of fund manager emphasis on outcomes other than maximizing net return.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/6864/mutual-hedge-funds/taxonomy-of-mutual-fund-fees-expenses-and-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Holdings Return Skewness as a Luck-Skill Discriminator</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13020/investing-expertise/holdings-return-skewness-as-a-luck-skill-discriminator/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13020/investing-expertise/holdings-return-skewness-as-a-luck-skill-discriminator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Investing Expertise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=13020</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can investors discriminate between lucky and skillful equity fund managers by examining the distribution of returns across fund holdings? In the September 2010 preliminary draft of their paper entitled &#8220;Home-Run Sluggers vs. Contact Hitters: Stock Performance Distribution inside Mutual Funds and Fund Managers&#8217; Stock Picking Ability&#8221;, Peter Chung and Thomas Kim relate the skewness of <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13020/investing-expertise/holdings-return-skewness-as-a-luck-skill-discriminator/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/13020/investing-expertise/holdings-return-skewness-as-a-luck-skill-discriminator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Institutional Ownership, Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns [PREMIUM]</title>
		<link>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/12104/fundamental-valuation/institutional-ownership-idiosyncratic-volatility-and-stock-returns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/12104/fundamental-valuation/institutional-ownership-idiosyncratic-volatility-and-stock-returns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve LeCompte</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fundamental Valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual/Hedge Funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volatility Effects]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cxoadvisory.com/?p=12104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is the number of institutional owners of a stock, arguably a proxy for general investor awareness and demand, an important factor in current and future pricing of the stock? In their February 2011 paper entitled &#8220;What Makes Stock Prices Move? Fundamentals vs. Investor Recognition&#8221;, Scott Richardson, Richard Sloan and Haifeng You investigate the role of <a href="http://www.cxoadvisory.com/12104/fundamental-valuation/institutional-ownership-idiosyncratic-volatility-and-stock-returns/"><strong>More...</strong></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cxoadvisory.com/12104/fundamental-valuation/institutional-ownership-idiosyncratic-volatility-and-stock-returns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

