Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:42:03.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of asset allocation in Spanish equity pension plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2007

LAURA ANDREU ,
LUIS FERRUZ  and
LUIS VICENTE
LAURA ANDREU
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Zaragoza, C/Gran Vía 2, 50005-Zaragoza, Spain
LUIS FERRUZ
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Zaragoza, C/Gran Vía 2, 50005-Zaragoza, Spain
LUIS VICENTE
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Zaragoza, C/Gran Vía 2, 50005-Zaragoza, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the methodological approach taken by Ibbotson and Kaplan (2000), we provide evidence of a major contribution of strategic asset allocation to Spanish equity personal pension plan performance, finding that on average more than 90% of variability of returns over time, and about 70% of the variation of returns among plans, are explained by strategic policy.

Furthermore, we also have evidence that survivor and look-ahead bias detected in previous research have very little impact on the conclusions about the importance of asset allocation on the variability of returns over time.

The importance of asset allocation to explain the variability of returns over time is quite similar for the different investment vocations considered in our study, Euro zone and global equity. Very similar results are also found when we consider the size of the Spanish plans as an explanatory factor for the contribution of asset allocation to performance.

Finally, the value that active management adds to the mere passive tracking of the strategic policy is not statistically different to the management costs of the plans.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 129 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., and Beebower, G. L. (1986) Determinants of portfolio performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 42(4): 39–48.Google Scholar
Brinson, G. P., Singer, B. D., and Beebower, G. L. (1991) Determinants of portfolio performance II: an update. Financial Analysts Journal, 47(3): 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buetow, G. W., Johnson, R., and Runkle, D. (2000) The inconsistency of return based style analysis. Journal of Portfolio Management, spring, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carhart, M. M., Carpenter, J. N., Lynch, A., and Musto, D. K. (2002) Mutual fund survivorship. The Review of Financial Studies, 15(5): 1439–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roon, F. A., Nijman, T. E., and Ter Horst, T. R. (2004) Evaluating style analysis. Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1): 29–53.Google Scholar
Drobetz, W. and Köhler, F. (2002) The contribution of asset allocation policy to portfolio performance. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 16(2): 219–233.Google Scholar
Ferruz, L. and Vicente, L. A. (2005) Effects of multicollinearity on the definition of mutual funds' strategic style: the Spanish case. Applied Economics Letters, 12(9): 553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harri, A. and Brorsen, W. (2004) Performance persistence and the source of returns for hedge funds. Applied Financial Economics, 14(2): 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, C. R., Ezra, D., and Ilkiw, J. H. (1991) The importance of the asset allocation decision. Financial Analysis Journal, 47(4): 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, R. and Kaplan, P. (2000) Does asset allocation policy explain 40, 90 or 100 percent of performance? Financial Analyst Journal, 56(1): 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahnke, W. W. (1997) The asset allocation hoax. Journal of Financial Planning, 10(1): 109–113.Google Scholar
Jahnke, W. W. (2000) Does asset allocation policy explain 40, 90 or 100 percent of performance?: comments. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(1): 17–18.Google Scholar
Lobosco, A. and DiBartolomeo, D. (1997) Approximating the confidence intervals for Sharpe style weights. Financial Analysts Journal, 53(4): 80–85.Google Scholar
Lummer, S. and Riepe, M. W. (1994) The role of asset allocation in portfolio management. In Jess, Lederman and Robert, Klein (eds) Global Asset Allocation: Techniques for Optimizing Portfolio Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nuttall, J. (2000) Does asset allocation policy explain 40, 90 or 100 percent of performance?: Comments. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(1): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, W. F. (1992) Asset allocation: management style and performance measurement. Journal of Portfolio Management, summer, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, D. H., Surz, R. J., and Wimer, Mark E. (1999) The importance of investment policy. Journal of Investing, 8(4): 80–85.Google Scholar