Search results

The uncertainty as to whether investments in riskier and less efficient markets allow managers to ‘beat the market’ remains a question to which answers are required. Accordingly, the purpose of this chapter is to offer new insights on portfolios of the US, European and Emerging Market (‘EM’) domiciled equity mutual funds whose objectives are the investment in emerging economies, and specifically analyses two main issues: alpha generation and the influence of the funds’ characteristics on their risk-adjusted performance.

The dataset is made up a survivorship-bias controlled sample of 137 equity funds over the period January 2004 to December 2014, which are then grouped into equally weighted portfolios according to the scheme’s origin. The Jensen’s (1968) Single-Factor model along with the Fama and French’s (1993) and Carhart’s (1997) multifactor models are employed to authenticate results and answer both research questions.

Research analysis reveals that EM exposed fund managers fail to collectively outperform the market. It thereby offers ground to believe that the emerging world is very close to being efficient, proving that the Efficient Market Hypothesis (‘EMH’) ideal exists in this scenario where market inefficiency might only be a perception of market participants as any apparent opportunity to achieve above-average returns is speedily snapped up by very active managers. Overall these managers take a conservative approach to portfolio construction, whereby they are more unperturbed investing in large cap equity funds so as to lessen somewhat the exposure towards risks associated with liquidity, stability and volatility.

Furthermore, the findings show that large-sized equity portfolios have the lead over the medium and small-sized competitors, whilst the high cost and mature collective investment vehicles enjoy an alpha which although is negative is superior to their peers. The riskiest funds generated the lowest alpha, and thereby produced doubts as to whether investors should accept a higher risk for the hope of earning higher returns, at least when aiming to gain an exposure into the emerging world.

Mutual fund performance is not an innovative topic so to speak. Nonetheless, researchers and academia have centred their efforts on appraising the behaviour of fund managers domiciled primarily in developed and more efficient economics, leaving the emerging region highly uncovered in this respect. This study, therefore aims at crafting meaningful contributions to the literature as well as to the practical perspective.

This chapter examines the performance persistence evidences of pension fund managers who managed the constituent equity funds included in Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) schemes over the period 2001–2004. Nonparametric two-way contingency table and parametric OLS regression analysis are employed to evaluate performance persistence. The evidence suggests that the raw returns, traditional Jensen alphas, and conditional Jensen alphas in the previous year possess predictive abilities. When the funds are classified into high-volatile and low-volatile samples, the high-volatile funds are found to possess stronger performance persistence. Neither hot-hand nor cold-hand phenomena are found in the equity funds managed by same investment manager.

This chapter compares the returns performance of the Islamic mutual funds (IMFs) with that of conventional mutual fund (CMF). It covers both pre- and post-ASEAN financial crisis and global financial crisis data for an overall sample of 128 IMFs and 350 CMFs. It also covers two market cycles from January 1995 to December 1998 and from January 2005 to December 2008.

The net raw returns of all expenses and market risk-adjusted return performance measurements are employed to examine the portfolios’ performance, and to capture the difference movement of the funds based on the particular market trend.

We observed that on average both portfolios outperform the market return. In general, average returns performance of IMFs is not better than the CMFs during bullish and bearish market trend periods. However, the empirical results based on time-series regression model reveal that the IMFs portfolio slightly outperform the conventional counterparts.

The study would benefit the investors and market players to consider IMFs in their portfolio selection, if in future such an expected event may occur.

The study provides insights to regulators and market players who plan to access investment plan in an emerging market, particularly in Malaysia.

Pension funds are demanding increasingly more information about the levels of corporate social responsibility achieved by companies through the use of corporate social responsibility reports to select which firms’ stocks to invest in. This could improve or reduce the financial performance achieved by pension plans. Therefore, this chapter examines the financial performance obtained by equity pension plans, distinguishing between solidarity pension plans, ethical pension plans and conventional pension plans.

We use a sample of 153 individual system pension plans (129 conventional pension plans, 6 solidarity pension plans and 18 ethical pension plans). Using these sample data, we implement the robust random effects panel data methodology.

The results show that ethical pension plans perform similarly to traditional pension plans, while solidarity pension plans significantly outperform conventional pension plans.

We do not know what weights managers give to environmental, social and corporate governance criteria, which may influence the financial performance of pension plans.

The results of this study could be relevant for pension plan managers that may be considering the integration of ethical screening in their management strategies in order to offer differentiated products and for investors who would like to invest in ethical pension plans without compromising their financial performance.

Previous studies have analysed the financial performance obtained by traditional and ethical funds, but in this chapter we compare the financial performance of traditional, solidarity and ethical pension plans.

Limited access to capital is a classic issue in and a burden to micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Indonesia. The existence of the problem with information asymmetry and agency conflicts that are predominant at the level of small businesses, increasingly hampers the opportunity to obtain funds from various external sources. Especially for businesses that are at the pioneering stage, entrepreneurs are required to think creatively, have the courage to take risks, and be independent in fulfilling resources to realize business opportunities. The availability of funds certainly has an impact on business performance, either directly or indirectly. Based on a literature review, business performance is categorized into financial and non-financial dimensions with various measurement proxies. However, some of the models and measurements proposed are not always suitable in assessing the performance of MSMEs, especially in the startup phase. Therefore, this chapter concurrently describes the funding patterns and the funding alternatives to measure the performance of new businesses based on the existing literature. Theoretically, this research adds a perspective in the field of entrepreneurial finance regarding funding patterns that can be implemented by startup businesses in Indonesia and provides a proposal for measuring the concept of performance that is more adaptive and comprehensive for businesses in the startup stage. The implication of this research for entrepreneurs leads to the need to adjust funding decisions according to the changing stages of the business lifecycle and to expand the funding window to support the sustainability of small businesses.

Since their inception in late 2007, the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) funds, which help Chinese investors to invest in foreign capital markets, have experienced significant portfolio losses and persistent fund outflows. While these losses are large in absolute terms, QDII funds, on average, performed better than Chinese A-share funds, but slightly worse than a group of foreign mutual funds. Our study focuses on the QDII industry, and asks three interrelated questions: (1) why have there been large fund outflows from the industry? (2) what explains QDII funds’ poor performance? and (3) why have QDII funds been so heavily exposed to the Hong Kong market? Our empirical analysis shows that the persistent capital outflows were primarily a result of disappointing fund performance. This poor performance can, in turn, be explained by the deficiency of knowledge required of QDII fund managers to successfully invest in foreign capital markets and manage global portfolios. Finally, our study goes some way to explain the phenomenon of QDII funds’ large asset allocation in the Hong Kong market. This ‘Hong Kong bias’ is shown to be consistent with the well-documented ‘home bias’ behaviour in cross-border portfolio investment, but is greatly exacerbated by the lack of global investing experience of QDII managers.

The Canadian mutual fund setting is unique in that two governance mechanisms – corporate and trust – coexist. This study empirically examines the impact of each mechanism on fund fees and performance. We find that corporate class funds charge higher fees but deliver superior fee-adjusted returns than trust funds. We then analyze the impact of various board characteristics on fees and performance for corporate class funds. We find that a board with smaller size, CEO duality, and a higher percentage of independent directors is more likely to charge lower fees. In addition, smaller boards are strongly associated with higher fee-adjusted performance. Our study supports agency theory over stewardship theory and provides valuable guidelines for Canadian investors and regulatory agencies.

Purpose – These last three years, the global reputation of microfinance has been damaged by some major crises, notably in India. The Microfinance Investment Vehicles (MIVs), funded by public money and socially inclined investors, are believed by observers to be part of the causes of the crises (von Stauffenberg & Rozas, 2011). As a consequence, they now have to demonstrate their commitment to the social mission of microfinance. This chapter aims at putting forward the debate on MIVs’ ability to effectively contribute to the social mission of microfinance by analyzing how they integrate social performance in their investment decisions.

Methodology/approach – Analysis of interviews with microfinance fund managers based on a framework of recognized impediments to a socially responsible approach in investing.

Findings – While social performance is recognized by respondents to be an important topic for the industry, fund managers still do not give a strong role to social criteria in investment decisions. The findings of the qualitative analysis in the chapter demonstrate that this is linked to a number of major impediments such as the tendency to believe that microfinance is social per se, the lack of standardization in social performance tools, and also a loose regulation regarding social reporting.

Research limitations/implications – The findings of the study are limited due to the relatively small sample size and the focus on fund managers’ answers only. Future research could investigate the viewpoints of different stakeholders in the investment process, such as the back investors of microfinance funds or the regulatory institutions.

Originality/value – To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to get insights on the impediments to a stronger focus on social performance by MIVs, with the application of a recognized framework from the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) literature.

We examine the relationship between how mutual fund sponsors configure their board(s) of directors and the performance of the funds under a particular board's purview. Fund sponsors utilize either one board to oversee all the funds within a fund family or multiple boards that oversee one fund or a subset of the family's funds. Our results suggest that fund families – that is, sponsors – that use multiple boards have significantly higher objective-adjusted board-level weighted excess returns. But, there are no significant differences in the objective-adjusted board-level weighted excess expenses. These results are consistent with the argument that multiple boards provide superior monitoring.