臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究探討中華民國證券投資信託暨顧問商業同業公會所制訂「基金風險報酬等級分類標準」作為投資風險分級標準的實證結果，藉著基金基金內在特徵、績效評估、風險衡量等指標作為變數，檢驗五個風險等級所代表的基金風險特徵。

實證結果發現，以標準差、風險值、最大累積歸損作為投資風險指標作檢驗，以平均值來看，「基金風險報酬等級分類標準」確實具有風險大小程度分級的功用，惟如果觀測全部樣本除了RR1類型組成樣本特徵較為一致，其餘RR2~RR5樣本分布皆為離散，顯示單一組別內樣本的報酬風險特徵不完全一致。

基金總費用在對基金波動程度或下方風險有顯著正向關係。基金分類之股票型、債券型、平衡型、組合型、貨幣型對基金波動程度及下方風險有顯著關係，並且符合投資人對基金分類之風險大小的認知。「理柏台灣分類」共24個類別，對基金特徵之描繪更為精確，確實有助於投資時對風險程度之判斷。

基金風險等級之風險持續性研究顯示，風險等級愈高者愈容易出現風險不持續的情形，特定時間點如遭遇市場系統性風險，也較容易出現風險不持續的情形，故代表基金風險等級不能作為未來風險程度的預期而應該定期檢視並加以動態調整。

This paper investigates the Risk-Reward rating of the mutual fund established by Securities Investment Trust &; Consulting Association of the R.O.C. (SITCA). In light of the outcome of the Internal features of the fund, fund performances, investment risk indicator investigation, the study estimates the characteristics of the mutual fund represented by the five Risk-Reward rating levels.

The investigation results in several main findings. First, by using standard deviation, Value at Risk, max drawdown as variables, the Risk-Reward rating could show five degrees of risk. But besides the samples of RR1, distribution of the samples of RR2~RR5 are discrete. It means that the characteristics of the samples of RR2~RR5 are not consistent.

Second, total expense ratio and volatility or downside risk have a positive correlation. Fund type including equity fund, fixed income fund, balance fund, fund of funds, money market fund and volatility or downside risk also have a positive correlation. Lipper Taiwan Classifications have 24 classifications that help to define degrees of risk clearly.

Finally, studies show that the Risk-Reward rating of the mutual fund are not predictors of future risk performance. The degrees of fund risk should review regularly and make dynamic adjustments.

中文摘要 ii
英文摘要 iii
誌　　謝 iv
目　　錄 v
表 目 錄 vi
圖 目 錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
　1.1 研究動機 1
　1.2 研究議題 4
　1.3 研究流程與架構 5
第二章 文獻回顧與市場背景 6
2.1 文獻回顧 6
2.2 市場與法規背景 10
第三章 研究方法 18
　3.1 研究樣本與期間 18
　3.2 資料處理 19
　3.3 研究變數定義 26
3.4 研究變數符號與操作性定義 30
　3.5 實證模型 33
第四章 實證結果 39
　4.1 基本敘述統計分析 39
　4.2 研究變數相關係數矩陣分析 53
　4.3 迴歸模型分析 54
　 4.3.1 以基金類型衡量基金風險之多元迴歸分析 54
4.3.2 以投資區域、國家、產業衡量基金風險之多元迴歸分析 59
4.3.3 衡量基金風險等級與各項績效/風險指標之虛擬變數迴歸分析 62
4.3.4 衡量基金風險持續性之Spearman等級相關檢定 65
第五章 結論與建議 74
參考文獻 76
附錄一 中華民國證券投資信託暨顧問商業同業公會基金風險報酬等級分類標準設置說明 78
附錄二 以Lipper Taiwan分類之基金敘述統計 82
附錄三 以投資區域分類之基金敘述統計 84
附錄四 以理柏環球分類之基金敘述統計 88

1. Blake, C.R. and Morey, M. R. (2000). Morningstar Ratings and Mutual Funds Performance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 3, 451-483.
2. Chang, E. C. and W. G. Lewellen (1984). Market timing and mutual fund investment performance. Journal of Business, 57, 57-72.
3. Rachel Campbell, Ronald Huisman, Kees Koedijk (2001). Optimal portfolio selection in a Value-at-Risk. Journal of Banking &; Finance, 25, 1789-1804.
4. Dowd, K. (1999). A value at risk approach to risk-return analysis. Journal of Portfolio Management, 25(4), 60-67.
5. Sharpe William F. (1992). Asset Allocation: Management Style and performance measurement. Journal of Portfolio Management, 18(2), 7-19.
6. Carison, R. S. (1970). Aggregate Performance of Mutual Funds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 5, 1-32.
7. Williamson, J. P. (1972). Measurement and forecasting of mutual fund performance: choosing an investment strategy. Financial Analysts Journal, 28(6), 78-84.
8. Kallberg, J. G., Liu, C. L., &; Trzcinka, C. (2000). The value added from investment managers: An examination of funds of REITs. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 35(03), 387-408.
9. Israelsen, C. L. (1998). Characteristics of winning mutual funds. JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL PLANNING-DENVER, 11, 78-87.
10. Droms, W. G., &; Walker, D. A. (1994). Investment performance of international mutual funds. Journal of Financial Research, 17(1), 1-14.
11. Grinblatt, M., &; Titman, S. (1994). A study of monthly mutual fund returns and performance evaluation techniques. Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 29(03), 419-444.
12. Indro, D. C., Jiang, C. X., Hu, M. Y., &; Lee, W. Y. (1999). Mutual fund performance: does fund size matter?. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), 74-87.
13. Ippolito, R. A. (1989). Efficiency with costly information: A study of mutual fund performance, 1965-1984. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1-23.
14. Apap, A., &; Griffith, J. M. (1998). The impact of expenses on equity mutual fund performance. JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL PLANNING-DENVER, 11, 76-81.
15. Dahlquist, M., Engström, S., &; Söderlind, P. (2000). Performance and characteristics of Swedish mutual funds. Journal of Financial and quantitative Analysis, 35(03), 409-423.
16. CESR (July 2010). CESR’s guidelines on the methodology for the calculation of the synthetic risk and reward indicator in the Key Investor Information Document. COMMITTEE OF EUROPEAN SECURITIES REGULATORS, Ref. CESR/10-673.
17. Morningstar, Inc. (2008). Morningstar Style BoxTM Methodology. Morningstar Methodology Paper, 10-32.
18. 林青瑤 (2007)，「開放型基金風險值應用與績效評估指標之探討」，未出版碩士論文，台灣大學國際企業所碩士論文。
19. 林秋含 (2013)，「基金管理特徵與指標的關係-以國內股票開放型基金為例」，未出版碩士論文，台灣科技大學財務金融研究所碩士論文，。
20. 陳瑞璽、洪碧霞、劉喻欣 (2014)，「組合型基金是否優於一般共同基金？風險與報酬及基金特性之探討」，管理與系統第21卷第2期。
21. 張麗娟 (2012)，「臺灣開放式股票型基金風險比較分析」，中華管理評論國際學報第15卷第1期。
22. 邱淑暖、許家豪 (2002)，「基金特徵與基金績效之關係」，中華管理評論國際學報第5卷第4期。
23. 王佳眞、徐辜元宏 (2003)，「風險值的應用與台灣共同基金績效指標之持續性」，臺大管理論叢，14(2)。
24. 邱顯比、李存修 (2015/01)，「基金績效評比」，中華民國證券投資信託暨顧問同業公會委託台灣大學財務金融系(所)。