Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to present an investigation on the dynamic linkages between global macro hedge funds and traditional financial assets of developed and emerging markets.

Methodology/approach – To explore relationships among these price indices, we analyse Granger causality and vector autoregression (VAR) dynamics through impulse response functions. Besides, multivariate cointegration is used to know long-term relationships between assets and allows risk-averse investors to reduce uncertainty. Finally, a vector error correction model (VECM) provides active asset managers the opportunity to anticipate short-term price movements.

Findings – Our results show that in a Granger causality sense, we observe long- and short-term relationships between global macro hedge funds and traditional financial assets for Canada, France and Germany. This implies that opportunities for international portfolio diversification are significantly lower for countries having relationships between assets. For Canada, France and Germany, the risk-averse investors can reduce their long-term volatility by investing according to the cointegrating vector, whereas active managers can benefit from the knowledge of short-term asset price movements. The VEC Pairwise Granger causality in the short term confirms our analysis of causality according to VAR models.

Originality/value of paper – These results are original because they help the investor to understand the dynamics of the relationship between global macro hedge funds and traditional financial assets.

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.

This paper has two purposes: to identify and explain the major forces that are causing the increasing need for operational reporting and intellectual capital (IC) reporting for European companies; and to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for operational and intellectual capital reporting if such reporting is to be meaningful for information users.

The approach for this paper has been to examine relevant papers, reports, guidelines, compendiums, annual reports, opinions, submissions and legislation.

Eight determining forces are identified that make the basis of the case for the provision of operating and IC information: the long‐standing global dominance and growth of the US economy; the emergence of business models other than the value chain (especially the emergence of network businesses); the changing nature of stock exchanges; the influence of different investment fund types (mutual, pension and hedge funds); the roles of buy‐side and sell‐side analysts; global and European investment index development; rating agency activity; and financial reporting and corporate governance regime development.

The eight forces are interdependent and immutable. Comprehensive operational and IC reporting are unavoidable. Accordingly, the authors propose that the necessary and sufficient conditions for adequate enterprise information reporting are: a legal requirement for mandatory operational and IC reporting and attendant regulatory framework(s) where the legal framework is based on the concept of neglect; key operating and IC resource status and activity performance definitions and metrics that reflect the enterprise's underlying business model(s); and (3) a mapping of the capitalized operational and IC investments that are by definition normally expensed to the financial report accounts.

The authors believe that no one has previously formally proposed a mandatory operational and IC reporting requirement; a legal reference frame of reference based on the legal concept of neglect; standard definitions for operational and IC performance metrics; a reference framework for information quality that is, inter alia, based on the consistency, comparability and comprehensiveness of reported metrics; and the requirement to map all capitalized IC resources back to the financial reports of the company.

This paper aims to examine the performance and benchmark asset allocation policy of 70 KiwiSaver funds catergorised as growth, balanced or conservative over the period October 2007-June 2016. The study focuses on the sources for returns variability across time and returns variation among funds.

Each fund is benchmarked against a portfolio of eight indices representing eight invested asset classes. Three measures were used to examine the after-fee benchmark-adjusted performance of each fund: excess return, cumulative abnormal return and holding period returns difference. Tracking error and active share were used to capture manager’s benchmark deviation.

On average, funds underperform their respective benchmarks, with the mean quarterly excess return (after management fees) of −0.15 per cent (growth), −0.63 per cent (balanced) and −0.83 per cent (conservative). Benchmark returns variability, on average, explains 43-78 per cent of fund’s across-time returns variability, and this is primarily driven by fund’s exposures to global capital markets. Differences in benchmark policies, on average, account for 18.8-39.3 per cent of among-fund returns variation, while differences in fees and security selection may explain the rest. About 61 per cent of balanced and 47 per cent of Growth funds’ managers make selection bets against their benchmarks. There is no consistent evidence that more actively managed funds deliver higher after-fee risk-adjusted performance. Superior performance is often due to randomness.

This study makes use of a unique data set gathered directly from KiwiSaver managers and captures the long-term strategic asset allocation target which underlines the investment management process in reality. The study represents the first attempt to examine the impact of benchmark asset allocation policy on KiwiSaver fund’s returns variability across time and returns variation among funds.

This chapter aims to determine whether diversification benefits accrue from adding emerging market hedge funds (EMHFs) to an emerging market bond/equity portfolio, and subsequently whether the type of exposure hedge funds provide is justified by their fees. We use multivariate cointegration analysis to show that the advantages of adding hedge funds to balanced portfolios are limited for the three regions of Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, as well as for the entire global emerging market universe. In summary, we find that emerging market hedge funds are generally redundant for diversifying long-only emerging market investment portfolios with long-term investment horizons. This result also holds when we extend our sample by the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 and allow for structural breaks according to the Gregory-Hansen (1996) test. Hence, even during the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, when risk diversification was most needed, long-term comovements between hedge funds and traditional assets is, with the exception of the Eastern European region, not disrupted. Because EMHF returns are heavily influenced by the emerging market equity and bond markets, we conclude that the “alpha fees” charged by EMHFs may not always be appropriate for the three main regions under consideration. This also holds, however, to a lesser extent, for a global diversification among hedge funds and traditional assets in emerging markets.

This study investigates the relation between ESG-driven investment strategies and the performance of infrastructure funds. More specifically, this study examines the impact of the different dimensions – environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) – of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds on their performance.

To study the risk-return properties of infrastructure funds and the relationship with their ESG profiles, an econometric analysis is conducted, based on a sample of 180 listed, ESG-oriented infrastructure funds identified through Refinitiv Eikon.

The results show that infrastructure funds with more solid environmental investment policies experience a lower performance, while those with a stronger social orientation yield a superior performance. Governance-related investment policies seem trivial in determining the performance of these funds. Further analysis shows that ESG controversies have a negative impact on infrastructure funds' performance, whereas Emissions and Resource Use scores, both proxying for different elements under the environmental pillar, have opposite signs. Finally, the Community score has a positive impact on funds' performance consistent with the positive impact of the social pillar score. The study also provides a number of sub-sample analyses to shed light on the conditions under which each pillar has significant impact on funds’ performance.

First, infrastructure funds should choose the composition of their portfolio holdings in a way that the total return is not penalized by the prevalence of the tricky E aspects (compliance with environmental regulations) over the main benefits of the S dimension. Second, fund managers need to bet on infrastructures with an expected impact on the social pillar dimension such as those aimed at promoting the wealth of the local communities (e.g. hospitals, schools). Third, to strengthen the fund's social dimension, fund managers must increase the dollar amount of the assets under management to count on a higher firepower.

This study makes three contributions to literature. First, the ESG profiles of the infrastructure funds operating both at local and global level and their relationship with annual performance are studied. Second, the different dimensions of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds are investigated by measuring their impact on performance. Third, the study sheds light on some detailed but relevant aspects of this phenomenon by analyzing the breakdown of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds into four sustainability sub-scores capturing their efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, the use of polluting materials and to influence local communities as well their exposure to the risk of litigation due to the occurrence of ESG controversies. This study addresses the extent to which the adoption of ESG investment policies by the infrastructure funds have an impact on their performances.

The authors examine the performance of individual global equity funds in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and separate the skill of their fund managers from luck.

The authors use cross-sectional bootstrap simulations to study the monthly net and gross returns of 175 funds over the period September 2005 to December 2019. Simulations are applied to three, four, and five-factor asset pricing models, and to regressions run on fund-specific benchmark indexes. The authors also examine the value added by all funds and by fund size groups.

Using multifactor models, a majority of the individual funds fail to deliver alpha, both net and gross of fees; whereas, most of the negative alphas appear due to poor skills, not bad luck. Relative to benchmark indexes, about 5% of the sample shows skill only gross of fees, indicating that fund management fees absorb this skill. As a whole, global equity funds in CEE add more economic value than they destroy, gross of fees, which is largely driven by large funds.

Market-tracking passive indexes are the most reliable choice for investors who want to maximise their risk-adjusted returns at the lowest possible cost. However, investors with a high level of risk appetite might prefer small actively managed funds in CEE when market conditions are stable or growing. Investors who are less risk tolerant might prefer large actively managed funds.

This is the first study to shed light on the presence of skill in mutual fund returns in CEE.

Over the last two decades global cross‐border investment has increased. State‐owned and managed, sovereign‐wealth funds (SWFs), largely from the emerging‐market economies, have started playing a decisive role in underpinning, sustaining and expanding financial globalization. This paper aims to provide the reader with basic conceptual strands on the SWF, their genesis, coming into prime and recent spurt in their operations.

The paper focuses on defining SWFs and tracks their origin and growth. It explores the present and future market size of SWFs and examines the ramifications of this group of large institutional investors. It also answers the query whether anxieties about their operations are exaggerated and attempts to provide answers regarding some of the prickly policy questions.

The paper finds that, although they are an instrument of enhancing liquidity and financial resource allocation in the international capital market, they have become a source of controversies and threaten and escalation in financial protectionism.

The paper focuses on the concept of SWFs and the recent spurt in their activities and significance.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the performance implications for UK DC pension fund investors who choose to combine global listed and UK unlisted real estate in a blended allocation relative to a pure unlisted solution.

Blended listed and unlisted real estate portfolios are constructed. Investor risk and returns are then studied over the full 15 year sample horizon and distinct cyclical phases over this period using a number of risk-return metrics. Performance is then contrasted with that of a pure unlisted solution, as well as UK equity market and bond total returns over the same period.

A UK DC pension fund investor choosing to construct a blended global listed and UK unlisted real estate portfolio would have experienced material return enhancement relative to a pure unlisted solution. The “price” of this enhanced performance and improved liquidity profile is, unsurprisingly, higher portfolio volatility. However, because of the improved returns, the impact upon measured risk adjusted returns is less significant.

Relatively liquid blended listed and unlisted real estate portfolios create efficient risk and return outcomes for investors.

This study uses actual fund rather than index data (i.e. measures delivered returns to investors), has chosen a global rather than single country listed real estate allocation and is focused on providing clarity around the real estate exposure for a specific investment requirement, the UK DC pension fund market.