PurposeThis paper seeks to focus on examining unit trust performance in Malaysia over the period 1991‐2001.Design/methodology/approachThe broad based study covers full economic cycles using 7 different performance measures: raw return, market adjusted return, Jensen's alpha, adjusted Jensen's alpha, Sharpe Index, adjusted Sharpe Index, and Treynor Index.FindingsThe results show that on average the performance of Malaysian unit trust falls below market portfolio and risk free returns. However, the variance of unit trust monthly returns is less than the market. Performance by type of funds indicates that bond funds show relatively superior performance, over and above the market and equity unit trusts. This is due to the high interest rate kept during the crisis period. Findings also suggest that there is no persistency in performance as there is no significant inter‐temporal correlation between past and current performance.Research limitations/implicationsThe issue of inferior performance needs further investigations to adjust for great importance placed on maintaining consistent dividend distribution. In addition, ill‐managed funds must be separately analysed to see if limited budget, less qualified managers, use of limited information and less sophisticated software could explain the poor performance.Practical implicationsA very useful source of information for potential investors and portfolio management companies looking for opportunities to invest.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the present body of knowledge by offering broad based performance evidence from an emerging market with strong government back up for unit trusts investment.

Original Research Article Objective: Assessing the performance of European System for Cardiac Operative Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and EuroSCORE II. Method: 4145 patients who underwent cardiac surgery between 1 st January 2015 to 31 st December 2016 in Institut Jantung Negara (IJN) were included. The entire cohort and isolated coronary bypass graft (CABG) patients were analyzed by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for model discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi-squared test for model calibration. Performance of both models was compared. Result: For the entire cohort, ROC curve for EuroSCORE was 0.679; EuroSCORE II was 0.615. For isolated CABG patients, ROC curve for EuroSCORE was 0.670; EuroSCORE II was 0.609. For the entire cohort, Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between expected and observed mortality according to EuroSCORE model (Chi-square = 5.284, P = 0.508) and EuroSCORE II model (Chi-square = 15.828, P = 0.050). For the isolated CABG patients, Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no significant difference between expected and observed mortality according to EuroSCORE model (Chi-square = 5.365, P = 0.498) and EuroSCORE II model (Chi-square = 9.839, P = 0.276). For the entire cohort (Table 7), the observed and predicted mortality were 4.56% and 3.7% respectively for EuroSCORE; observed and predicted mortality were similar at 4.56% for EuroSCORE II. For isolated CABG patients (Table 8), the observed and predicted mortality were 3.62% and 3.36% respectively for EuroSCORE; the observed and predicted mortality were 3.62% and 3.97% respectively for EuroSCORE II. Conclusion: Despite poor discrimination under the ROC, the calibration of both models was good and acceptable to be used for risk prediction tools in our centre.