Search results

This paper aims to examine the association between the types of mutual funds, i.e. active versus passive, and the level of earnings manipulation in companies that comprise their stock portfolios.

The authors use Cremers and Petajisto’s (2009) classification of mutual funds by active share and tracking error volatility to differentiate between active and passive mutual funds. To assess the extent of earnings quality at portfolio companies, the authors measure accruals earnings management and real earnings management.

The authors find that the portfolio firms held by active fund managers exhibit lower levels of earnings manipulation. The inverse relationship between earnings management and fund holdings is more pronounced at higher levels of active share selection among concentrated active fund managers.

The degree to which earnings management influences mutual funds’ investment behavior has significant implications for the stability of the US stock market. Based on the findings that earnings management at portfolio companies serves as a potential instrument to guide funds’ investment decisions, future research would examine how these investment preferences exert price pressure (if any) on the stock of the portfolio companies. It would also help to ascertain whether the investment preferences of fund managers with respect to earnings management help to render the stock market more or less efficient.

This paper contributes to the understanding of how actively managed funds perform stock selection. Earnings manipulation leads to negative earnings quality that would inhibit stock performance over time. Active fund managers, who dynamically manage their exposures to systematic and stock-specific risks (in their attempt to outperform their benchmark index), target firms that manage earnings less to form part of their investment portfolios.

This study investigates the performance distribution of passive funds in the Korean market and compares it with the performance distribution of active funds. The key findings are as follows, first, the performance distribution of passive funds has a thicker tail compared to that of active funds. There are passive funds that achieve outstanding performance, and both the false discovery rate (FDR) analysis and simulation analysis suggest that their outperformance is driven by managerial skill rather than luck. Second, passive fund performance is more persistent compared to active fund performance. Third, investors are less responsive to passive fund performance compared to active fund performance. The fund flow-performance relationship is significantly positive for active funds but not for passive funds. This implies that investors may not recognize the managerial skills of passive funds.

This paper analyses whether the active management and the fundamentals of the pension fund allow products that beat their peers to be identified in terms of risk-adjusted performance.

The sample is composed of all the pension funds active in the period 2000 to 2017 investing in the Eurozone. What this means is that a greater similarity is guaranteed in terms of benchmark, assets available for investment and currency. All the data have been retrieved from the Morningstar Direct database.

The paper reveals that the degree of concentration and value for money are important determinants of performance. In this sense, the strategies of investing in concentrated portfolios that differ from the benchmark and with undervalued assets in terms of price earnings ratio (PER)-return on assets (ROA) achieve better results.

This is one of the few papers that shows the effect of active management and value investing strategies’ on the performance of pension funds.

本文旨在分析、我們能否根據退休基金的積極管理及其基本原理, 找到就風險調整表現而言之最優勝產品.

我們的樣本包括於2000年至2017年期間活躍於歐元區內投資活動的所有退休基金。這意味著、樣本確保了相關之退休基金就基準、可供投資的資產及貨幣而言、均擁有較大的相似性。所有數據均從晨星基金資料庫檢索得來的。.

本文顯示、集中程度和價值比率是決定表現的重要因素。在這個意義上說，如投資在與基準不同的及附有就本益比 – 資產收益率 (PER - ROA) 而言被低估的資產的那些集中投資組合上, 這會是效果較佳的策略.

探討積極管理和價值投資策略如何影響退休基金表現的學術研究為數不多, 本文乃屬這類研究。.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of mutual funds’ performance at both a country level and a fund level in Vietnam.

The different types of funds with more than three-year operation are selected to remove outliers of the stock market boom from 2015 to 2018. The data set includes 54 mutual funds operating during the period from 2008 until November 2018.

The research finds that there is a positive relationship between macroeconomics and mutual funds’ performance. Furthermore, country-level governance such as regulation effectiveness, political stability, economic growth and financial development has a positive correlation with mutual funds’ performance. However, the impact of fund-level factors is diverse with the no significant impact of board size on mutual fund’s performance, while passive funds perform better than active funds in Vietnam.

The research results suggest that investors should pay attention to the types of funds and operating expense when making an investment decision in mutual funds. There are some recommendations for both government policy-makers and the mutual fund industry that are likely to facilitate the development of this field in Vietnam.

The research contributes to the understanding of what are the factors that should be considered when investing in mutual funds.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the role played by institutional investors in a firm’s decision to hire sustainability assurance services and to determine the benefits of sustainability assurance for the functioning of the capital market. This analysis is complemented by examining the quality of the sustainability assurance service that institutional investors demand.

The authors selected a sample of 1,564 multinational firms from 2002 to 2017. Panel data logit and generalised method of moments (GMM) regressions were estimated to consider decisions about hiring sustainability assurance services or not, and the assurance quality indexes constructed by a checklist based on the academic literature, respectively.

Institutional pressures associated with the environmental and social impacts of a firm’s activities lead to the convergence of institutional investor attitudes towards corporate sustainability, so that, regardless of their investment horizon, they promote the hiring of sustainability assurance services by corporate boards, which favours analyst precision and a reduction in the cost of capital. Long-term (LT) institutional investors exert influence through a selection mechanism, whereas short-term (ST) institutional investors exert influence through their presence on the board. Once the company has decided to provide assurance about its sustainability report, both types of institutional investors promote a higher quality of such service, although this is not well valued by the stock market.

This paper extends research on the monitoring role of institutional investors into the sustainability assurance context. Researchers may benefit from this paper’s findings when they examine the factors that drive the hiring of sustainability assurance services and their characteristics. This paper also shows that sustainability assurance services are a significant weakness due to the lack of standardisation in comparison with financial auditing, which complicates the assessment of their quality by stock market participants, thereby penalising those companies that provide more complete sustainability assurance reports.

Considering this paper’s findings, it seems advisable that regulators establish a normative framework to standardise sustainability assurance processes. The results can also be used as an orientation for both companies, to design their sustainability disclosure policies and regulators, to improve the running of the capital market.

Sustainability assurance services have a positive effect on the running of the capital market and improve external stakeholder decision-making by providing more reliable information, which, in turn, will favour the implementation of more sustainable actions that contribute to the attainment of sustainable development goals.

This is one of the first papers to analyse the effect of institutional ownership on a firm’s decision to hire sustainability assurance services and consider the effect of the institutional investors’ investment horizon – LT versus ST – and the channel – selection methods and/or active engagement – used by them to exert their influence. The authors also propose several measures of sustainability assurance quality to demonstrate the relevance of the contents of the assurance statement for the capital market in general and the institutional investors in particular.

In the build-up of an investment decision, the existence of both active and passive investment vehicles triggers a puzzle for investors. Indeed the confrontation between active and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a bone of contention since the inception of these investment structures. Accordingly, the objective of this chapter is to distinctly underscore whether an investor should be concerned in choosing between active and diverse passive investment structures.

The survivorship bias-free dataset consists of 776 equity funds which are domiciled either in America or Europe, and are likewise exposed to the equity markets of the same regions. In addition to geographical segmentation, equity funds are also categorised by structure and management type, specifically actively managed mutual funds, index mutual funds and passive exchange traded funds (‘ETFs’). This classification leads to the analysis of monthly net asset values (‘NAV’) of 12 distinct equally weighted portfolios, with a time horizon ranging from January 2004 to December 2014. Accordingly, the risk-adjusted performance of the equally weighted equity funds’ portfolios is examined by the application of mainstream single-factor and multi-factor asset pricing models namely Capital Asset Pricing Model (Fama, 1968; Fama & Macbeth, 1973; Lintner, 1965; Mossin, 1966; Sharpe, 1964; Treynor, 1961), Fama French Three-Factor (1993) and Carhart Four-Factor (1997).

Solely examination of monthly NAVs for a 10-year horizon suggests that active management is equivalent to index replication in terms of risk-adjusted returns. This prompts investors to be neutral gross of fees, yet when considering all transaction costs it is a distinct story. The relatively heftier fees charged by active management, predominantly initial fees, appear to revoke any outperformance in excess of the market portfolio, ensuing in a Fool’s Errand Hypothesis. Moreover, both active and index mutual funds’ performance may indeed be lower if financial advisors or distributors of equity funds charge additional fees over and above the fund houses’ expense ratios, putting the latter investment vehicles at a significant handicap vis-à-vis passive low-cost ETFs. This chapter urges investors to concentrate on expense ratios and other transaction costs rather than solely past returns, by accessing the cheapest available vehicle for each investment objective. Put simply, the general investor should retreat from portfolio management and instead access the market portfolio using low-cost index replication structures via an execution-only approach.

The battle among actively managed and index replication equity funds in terms of risk-adjusted performance and alpha generation has been a grey area since the inception of mutual funds. The interest in the subject constantly lightens up as fresh instruments infiltrate financial markets. Indeed the mutual fund puzzle (Gruber, 1996) together with the enhanced growth of ETFs has again rejuvenated the active versus passive debate, making it worth a detailed analysis especially for the benefit of investors who confront a dilemma in choosing between the two management styles.

Stirred by scant regard for market phases in portfolio performance assessments, the current paper investigates the active versus passive investment strategies under the bull and bear market conditions in emerging markets focusing on South Africa as a case study.

Methodologically, the measures of Jensen's alpha and Treynor index are applied to the monthly returns of 20 funds from January 2010 to June 2022.

The results are enlightening; though they contradict developed market evidence, they are consistent with emerging market trends. The findings show that actively managed funds outperform the market benchmark and passive investing style under bear and normal market conditions. Passive investment strategy outperforms both market benchmark and actively investing style under bull market conditions.

In the face of improved market efficiency, increased liquidity and recent technological impact, the findings of this study have practical application. The study outcomes should inform and update global investors, especially asset managers interested in emerging markets; however, the limitations of the study should also be considered.

While limited studies consider market conditions when comparing and contrasting the performance of passive versus active investing, such consideration is lacking in emerging markets. The current study corrects this literature imbalance.

This study examines several aspects of active portfolio management by equity hedge funds between 1996 and 2013. Consistent with the idea that cross-sectional return dispersion is a proxy for the market’s available alpha, our results show that equity hedge funds achieve their strongest performance during periods of elevated dispersion. The performance advantage is robust to numerous risk adjustments. Portfolio managers may use the current month’s dispersion to plan the extent to which the following month’s investment approach will be active or passive. We also estimate the active share for equity hedge funds and find an average of 53%. We further document the average annual expense ratio for managing hedge funds’ active share to be about 7%. This figure is remarkably close to active expense ratios reported previously for equity mutual funds, which may be interpreted as evidence of uniform pricing for active portfolio management services.

We investigate institutional investors’ trading behavior of acquiring firm stocks surrounding merger activities for the period 1992–2001. We label investment companies and independent investment advisors as active institutions and banks, nonbank trusts, and insurance companies as passive institutions. We analyze the trading behavior of active and passive institutions surrounding merger announcements and their eventual resolution. Our results indicate that active institutions significantly increase their holdings of acquiring firm stocks for mergers with higher announcement period abnormal return and this increase is more pronounced for stock mergers than cash mergers. Active institutions display preference for stock proposals at the merger announcement on the basis of their prior beliefs and this is explained by the “overreaction phenomenon.” However, they update their beliefs between announcement and final resolution as more information arrives into the market. Finally, active institutions appear to correct their overreaction behavior by displaying their greater preference for cash proposals as compared to stock proposals at the quarter of eventual outcome. The trading behavior of passive institutions suggests that these institutions disregard the market response of merger announcement in trading acquiring firm stocks at the announcement quarter. The passive institutions gradually update their beliefs and utilize the information released at the announcement in rebalancing their portfolios at the final resolution.

We evaluate the performance of fixed income mutual funds using stochastic discount factors motivated by continuous-time term structure models. Time-aggregation of these models for discrete returns generates new empirical “factors,” and these factors contribute significant explanatory power to the models. We provide a conditional performance evaluation for US fixed income mutual funds, conditioning on a variety of discrete ex-ante characterizations of the states of the economy. During 1985–1999 we find that fixed income funds return less on average than passive benchmarks that do not pay expenses, but not in all economic states. Fixed income funds typically do poorly when short-term interest rates or industrial capacity utilization rates are high, and offer higher returns when quality-related credit spreads are high. We find more heterogeneity across fund styles than across characteristics-based fund groups. Mortgage funds underperform a GNMA index in all economic states. These excess returns are reduced, and typically become insignificant, when we adjust for risk using the models.