Translated Titles

Performance Evaluation of Selected Taiwanese Mutual Funds Under Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis Approach





Key Words

多屬性決策分析 ; 理想解類似度偏好順序評估 ; 共同基金 ; Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis ; TOPSIS ; Mutual Fund



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese Abstract

Treynor Ratio、Sharpe Ratio、Jensen's Alpha和Information Ratio為一般常用的基金績效評估指標,但每一指標考量的風險不盡相同,且投資者也不清楚哪一個指標較合適,故難以單一指標作為選購基金的參考,本研究除了比較這四個單一準則績效評估指標外,再透過多屬性決策分析方法將這四個指標綜合考量以評估共同基金績效,主要採用的多屬性決策分析方法為理想解類似度偏好順序評估方法(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution),以13種加權距離法建立13個多準則績效評估指標,研究2002年9月到2005年6月的82支台灣開放式股票型(投資國內)共同基金發現,在單一準則績效評估指標中以Jensen's Alpha較佳,多準則績效評估指標中則以CRITIC權重下的城市街道加權距離法最好,13個多準則績效評估指標雖然沒有顯著優於單一績效評估指標,但由於多準則績效評估指標能同時將更多的風險和資訊納入考量,所以本研究提出的多準則績效評估指標能作為投資共同基金另一參考的指標。

English Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of mutual funds. "Treynor Ratio", "Sharpe Ratio", "Jensen's Alpha" and "Information Ratio" are four commonly used indices for evaluating the competing mutual funds. However, it is not clear which measure is the most robust. This study has a different focus not only on investigating the four criteria separately but also combining all the indices at the same time in making a final ranking of the mutual funds. This study found that Jensen's Alpha outperforms the rest indices of both uni-criterion and multi-criteria. Although multi-criteria indices are not noticeably better than uni-criteria indices, the index using CRITIC weight method under City block distance measure is recommended if the correlation between the rankings is concerned. Even though the new indices are not noticeably more accurate than uni-criterion indices in ranking the mutual funds. But a good and informative index should be able to chart aggregate changes in market levels. Those uni-criterion indices only justify the risk or a mutual fund manager's ability partially. Multi-criteria indices are another choices which can be used to evaluate the mutual funds and can take all the criteria into consideration simultaneously. That's the main contribution of this research.

Topic Category 基礎與應用科學 > 統計
管理學院 > 統計學系碩士班
  1. Basso, Antonella and Funari, Stefania (2001), A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach to Measure the Mutual Fund Performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 135, 477-492.
  2. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units, European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
  3. Deng, H., Yeh, C. H. and Willis, R. J. (2000), Inter-company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights, Computers and Operations Research, 27, 963-973.
  4. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., and Papayannakis, L. (1995), Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: the CRITIC Method, Computers and Operations Research, 22, 763-770.
  5. Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, New York: Springer-Verlag.
  6. Jensen, M. C. (1968), The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964, Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389-416.
  7. Lin, J. J., Chang, C. H. and Chiang, M.C. (2005a), A Comparison of Usual Indices and Extended TOPSIS Methods in Mutual Funds' Performance Evaluation. (submitted paper)
  8. Lin, J. J., Chiang, M.C., Chang, C. H. and Wen, B. S. (2005b), On the Performance Evaluation of Balanced Mutual Funds and the Market-Timing Ability of Mutual Fund Managers, Journal of Taiwan Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 3(1), 109-131.
  9. Lin, J. J., Liu, C. Y., Chang, C. H. and Lin, C. H. (2005c), Extended TOPSIS Method and Application, Journal of the Chinese Statistical Association, 43(3), September, 165-187.
  10. Olson, D. L. (2001), Comparison of Three Multicriteria Methods to Predict Known Outcomes, European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 576-587.
  11. Olson, D. L. (2004), Comparison of Weights in TOPSIS Models, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40, 721-727.
  12. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. H. (2004), Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445-455.
  13. Securities Investment Trust & Consulting Association of the R.O.C., http://www.sitca.org.tw, retrieved 2005/07/08.
  14. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1947), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
  15. Sharpe, W. F. (1966), Mutual Fund Performance, Journal of Business, 39(1), Part 2: Supplement on Security Prices, 119-138.
  16. Sinha, B. K. (2003), Combining Environmental Indicators, Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Maryland Baltimore County. (working paper)
  17. Treynor, J. L. (1965), How to Rate Management of Investment Funds, Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 63-75.
  18. Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N. and Dublish, S. (1998), Multi-attribute Decision Making: A Simulation Comparison of Select Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507-529.
  19. Chow, W. S. (2002), Multivariate Statistical Analysis: with Application of SAS/STAT, Taipei: Best-Wise, 693-694.
  20. Dugan, I. J. (2005), Sharpe Point: Risk Gauge Is Misused, Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2005.
  21. Lai, Y. J., Liu, T. Y. and Hwang, C. L. (1994), TOPSIS for MODM, European Journal of Operational Research, 76, 486-500.
  22. Tang, I. L., Chen, S. Y. and Chen, C. B. (1998), Ranking Analysis in Mutual Fund Performance Based on Grey Relational Grade, 1998 Third National Conference on Grey Theory and Applications, Changhua, Taiwan, 145-152.
  23. Yoon, K. P. and Hwang, C.L.(1995), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
Times Cited
  1. 陳捷瑜(2008)。整合多屬性決策及模糊分群方法於台灣共同基金之選擇。臺灣大學商學研究所學位論文。2008。1-104。