Robust market timing tests of Canadian hybrid mutual funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Prior research has documented inconclusive and/or mixed empirical evidence on the timing performance of hybrid funds. Their performance inferences generally do not efficiently control for fixed-income exposure, conditioning information, and cross-correlations in fund returns. This study examines the stock and bond timing performances of hybrid funds while controlling and accounting for these important issues. It also discusses the inferential implications of using alternative bootstrap resampling approaches. Design/methodology/approach We examine the stock and bond timing performances of hybrid funds using (un)conditional multi-factor benchmark models with robust estimation inferences. We also rely on the block bootstrap method to account for cross-correlations in fund returns and to separate the effects of luck or sampling variation from manager skill. Findings We find that the timing performance of portfolios of funds is neutral and sensitive to controlling for fixed-income exposures and choice of the timing measurement model. The block-bootstrap analyses of funds in the tails of the distributions of stock timing performances suggest that sampling variation explains the underperformance of extreme left tail funds and confirms the good and bad luck in the bond timing management of tail funds. We report inference changes based on whether the Kosowski et al. or the Fama and French bootstrap approach is used. Originality/value This study provides extensive and robust evidence on the stock and bond timing performances of hybrid funds and their sensitivity based on (un)conditional linear multi-factor benchmark models. It examines the timing performances in the extreme tails funds using the block bootstrap method to efficiently identify (un)skilled fund managers. It also highlights the sensitivity of inferences to the choice of testing methodology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".