We revisit the nature of returns to scale following Pástor et al. (2015). Using replicated versions of their domestic equity fund sample, we confirm their negative and significant relation between industry scale and performance. However, upon closer examination we find the diseconomies of scale at the industry level result is an artifact of data errors that comprise less than 0.05% of the sample—168 out of 332,516 observations—that occurred most often in the year 2000. We are unable to find industry level diseconomies of scale in the post 2001 era. A major source of these errors is the incorrect use of Morningstar’s current performance benchmarks to measure historical return performance. We confirm the non-result findings using Fama–French three-factor adjusted returns, which are not subject to benchmarking errors.
Scale and Performance in Active Management are Not Negatively Related
We thank David Diltz, Nataliya Gerasimova, Qing Hao, Lubos Pástor, David Rakowski, Stephanie Rasmussen, Salil Sarkar, Terry Skantz, Robe Stambaugh, Thomas Thompson, Ram Venkataraman, Raghu Venugopalan, Sriram Villupuram, Ivo Welch (the editor), an anonymous referee, and seminar participants at the University of Texas Arlington for comments and suggestions that help improved the paper. Special thanks to Lucien Taylor and Min Zhu for providing software code as well as Arati Kale and Jason Morrison for data assistance. The remaining errors are ours.
Adams J, Hayunga D, Mansi S (2022), "Scale and Performance in Active Management are Not Negatively Related". Critical Finance Review, Vol. 11 No. 3-4 pp. 541–592, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/104.00000120
Download citation file:
