Search results

We examine the benefits of active international mutual fund management. Is there an advantage to active fund management over investing in index funds? Previous research has found that for domestic funds, active fund management can not outperform index funds. But there has been no clear conclusion as to active international mutual fund management. We utilize Morningstar Mutual Fund data to analyze five international mutual fund categories, and overall, for a sample of 831 funds with 4,835 annual return data points. We find the difference in mean return (index minus fund return) is negative for all fund categories, except for Europe funds. The difference is significant overall and for four of the five fund categories. The results from the multivariate regression show no relationship between total return and expense ratio, but there is a significant positive relationship between total return and turnover, and a significant positive relationship between total return and fund size (LN net assets). As opposed to domestic mutual funds, it appears to be beneficial to select actively managed international mutual funds over index funds.

The primary objective of the paper is to examine the short and long run price linkages between Malaysian unit trust funds and the stock market index as proxied by the Kuala Lumpur composite index (KLCI) over the period 1996‐2000.

Cointegration analyses are used to identify the long run relationship between unit trust funds and the stock market index while Granger causality tests are used to measure the short run price linkages.

Cointegration results show that the long run pricing performance of the unit trust funds differs significantly from that of the KLCI. Interestingly, the findings also reveal that two index funds are found not to be cointegrated with the stock market index. In the short run, one‐way Granger causality test shows that changes in the KLCI Granger causes changes in the unit trust funds. This suggests that fund managers are responding to the past changes in the stock market index over the short run.

The findings of non‐cointegration between passively managed funds and the KLCI are restricted to only two index funds in the sample among other actively managed funds. Since there were not enough index funds available over the study period, future research should include more index funds in the analysis.

In the short run, investors may gather information on the changes in their portfolio composition by observing the movement in the KLCI.

The paper represents the first evidence on the pricing relationships between unit trust funds and the local stock market index and the findings are important to investors in terms of their investment strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine operating characteristics, risk and performance measures of all available vehicles for index investing in US bond funds during the 15‐year period from April, 1994 to March, 2009. The results shed light on the important issue of bond index mutual funds (BIMFs) and bond exchange‐traded funds (BETFs) performance compared with average of all bond mutual funds.

Data were obtained from Morningstar Principia. Operating characteristics include expense ratios, annual turnover rates, and tax cost ratios. Performance measures include average annual returns and return percentile rank in category, risks (measured by standard deviation) and risk‐adjusted returns (measured by the Sharpe ratio).

BIMFs and BETFs have significantly lower expense ratios and annual turnover rates than category averages. Their returns and risk‐adjusted returns are significantly higher than bond category averages.

Future studies will be able to benefit from a larger sample size, longer performance records, and the strength of bond index funds in foreign markets.

Both BIMFs and bond exchange‐traded mutual funds have significantly lower expense and annual turnover rates, making them preferred investment choices.

Efforts by active bond mutual fund managers to beat index benchmarks have largely failed. Investors should be wary of bond mutual fund managers touting their ability to beat the average or a bond index.

The advantage of investment in BIMFs and BETFs is clear.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the behavior of institutional and retail investors in S&P 500 index funds separately to determine why they behave differently.

We analyze the relationship between net flow and past index-adjusted returns or expense ratios more extensively via panel data regressions across a broad dataset.

We find that the holding of institutional investors is, indeed, sticky. The results indicate that the net flow of institutional investors is not sensitive to past index-adjusted returns of expense ratios.

Prior studies have attempted to explain the irrational behavior of investors in S&P 500 index funds. We attempt to show plausible reasons why they behave differently.

Notes the popularity of index funds with US investors, refers to research on fund performance compared with indexes and presents a study comparing daily returns of S&P 500 index funds with the index itself. Explains the methodology and presents the results, which show that the funds “fall well short” of tracking the index efficiently; although larger funds and/or those with longer term managers have a better tracking performance. Considers consistency with other research and the implications of the findings.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the performance of UK property funds using the dual sources of active management, Active Share and tracking error, to distinguish between the types of active management styles used by funds.

The authors use data on 38 UK real estate funds and classify them into five active management categories using the dual sources of active management, Active Share and tracking error. Then, the authors compare their return performance against Active Share, tracking error, fund size and leverage. Therefore the paper is able to answer two of the fundamental questions of investment: does active management add value and what form of active management, stock selection or factor risk, is better at adding value to the fund?

There are three main conclusions. First, the approach of Cremers and Petajisto (2009) and Petajisto (2010) is able to classify real estate funds in the UK on their management activity into categories that makes intuitive sense and seem stable over time. Second, balanced funds show relatively low Active Shares and particularly low tracking errors, due to the benefits of property-type diversification. In contrast, specialists funds display higher Active Shares and both low and high tracking errors depending on their stock-picking approach; diversified or concentrated. Third, an analysis over different time periods confirmed that funds in the sample essentially remained in the same categories within the sample period, even during markedly different market return periods. This implies that investors need to constantly monitor changes in the market and switch between fund management styles, if at all possible.

The analysis was only based on 38 funds with complete data over the sample period and the relationship between fees and active management was not examined, even though ultimately investors are concerned with returns after management fee. It would be instructive therefore if the number of funds and time period was expanded to see if the results are robust and to see whether management fees outweigh the benefits of active manager.

The findings should enable investors to make a more informed investment decisions in the future.

To the best of the author’s knowledge this is the first paper to apply the dual sources of active management, Active Share and tracking error, in the UK real estate market.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the “market-neutral” characteristics of the market-neutral strategy hedge funds in Chinese A-share market.

The analyses in the paper are conducted to study the market-neutral characteristics by means of index analysis, correlation analysis, β-neutral analysis and the three-factor model analysis.

The results show that the performance advantage of the market-neutral strategy hedge funds is obvious. Most market-neutral strategy funds are exposed to market risks and the α strategy funds also have obvious style factor exposure; strictly speaking, all of the market-neutral strategies have not reached the “market-neutral” requirements. This paper also finds that Chinese trading restrictions on stock index futures in September 2015 have a significant impact on Chinese market-neutral strategy hedge funds.

The conclusion of this paper has a certain reference value for understanding the risk characteristics and possible problems of hedge funds in emerging markets, and also has important reference value for investors.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the value of active fund management using a sample of hybrid mutual funds.

Instead of using traditional risk‐adjusted measures, the paper employs an alternative attribution return methodology where the actual monthly fund return is compared to the return that would have been earned by the indexing strategy that best reflects the fund's prior month allocation. Value is measured by defining a fund's attribution return as the difference between a fund's actual month t return and the return that would have been generated in month t by the indexing strategy that most closely approximates the fund's month t−1 portfolio allocation.

It is found that hybrid funds as a group do not add value and that this underperformance does not appear to be driven by the poor performance of non‐surviving funds. However, these funds perform significantly better than the style benchmark under weak vs strong stock market conditions. This performance difference between bull and bear market conditions suggests some hedge fund‐like downside protection that may offer a reason why investors choose these funds despite the funds’ average underperformance and despite their higher costs relative to index funds.

The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it concentrates on hybrid mutual funds, which despite a surge in their interest over the last five years have attracted very little academic study. Second, in the implementation of its non‐traditional performance measure, it employed daily fund returns, stock market indices and bond market indices as opposed to the monthly or quarterly data used in other related studies.

This study aims to assess the relationship between cash management and fund performance in index fund portfolios.

Using a sample of 104 index mutual funds that track the Standard and Poor 500 stock market index from January 1999 to December 2016, the authors employ quintile portfolios and different regression models to assess the differences in risk-adjusted monthly returns experienced by index funds managing different cash levels in their portfolios. To ensure the robustness of the results, different sub-periods and market states are considered in the analyses as well as other exogenous factors and fund characteristics affecting the level of portfolio cash holdings and index fund performance.

Results show that index funds holding higher levels of cash and cash equivalents performed significantly worse than their low-cash counterparts. This evidence remains even after considering different sub-periods and bullish and bearish market conditions and controlling for fund expenses and other variables that could drive this cash-performance relationship.

This study expands the extant literature analyzing cash management in the mutual fund industry. More specifically, the analyses focus on index fund portfolios that replicate a specific benchmark, given that their performance differences should not be related to the market evolution but to the factors derived from the fund management and other exogenous issues. These findings are of interest to managers and investors willing to improve their risk-adjusted returns while investing as diversified as a stock market index.

El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la relación existente entre la gestión de efectivo y el desempeño consiguiente en las carteras de fondos de inversión indexados.

Utilizando una muestra de 104 fondos que replican el índice bursátil Standard and Poor's 500 desde enero de 1999 hasta diciembre de 2016, se emplean carteras hipotéticas que invierten en fondos similares y diferentes análisis de regresión para analizar las diferencias en las rentabilidades ajustadas mensuales entre fondos indexados que gestionan diferentes niveles de efectivo en sus carteras. Por motivos de robustez, se tienen en cuenta diversos subperiodos y estados de mercado, así como otros factores exógenos y características de los fondos que afectan tanto al nivel de efectivo mantenido en la cartera indexada como al desempeño de la misma.

Los resultados muestran que los fondos indexados que gestionan niveles de efectivo más elevados experimentan un desempeño significativamente menor que otros fondos comparables que mantienen menores porcentajes de efectivo en sus carteras de inversión. Se obtiene una evidencia similar tras considerar diferentes subperiodos y momentos alcistas y bajistas de mercado, así como al considerar los gastos propios de cada fondo y otras variables que podrían afectar esta relación entre el rendimiento y el efectivo gestionado.

Este estudio contribuye a la literatura existente que analiza la gestión de efectivo en la industria de fondos de inversión. Más específicamente, los análisis se centran en carteras de fondos que replican un índice bursátil específico, dado que las diferencias en sus rendimientos en este tipo de fondos no deberían originarse por la evolución del mercado, sino a causa de factores relacionados con la gestión de sus carteras y otros componentes exógenos al índice bursátil. Estos hallazgos son de interés para gestores e inversores que pretendan mejorar sus rentabilidades ajustadas al invertir mediante una estrategia tan diversificada como un índice bursátil.