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.

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.

Organizational performance is widely recognized as an important – if not the most important – construct in strategic management research. Researchers also agree that organizational performance is a multidimensional construct. However, the research implications of the construct's multidimensionality are less understood. In this chapter, we use a synthesis of previous attempts to describe the dimensions of performance and our own analysis of performance measurement in the Strategic Management Journal to build a conceptual model of organizational performance and its dimensions. Our model suggests that operational performance and organizational performance are distinct, and that organizational performance can be further dimensionalized into accounting returns, stock market, and growth measures. The model has implications for how future research might advance understanding about performance and how empirical studies should conceptualize and measure performance.

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.

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.

Good market timing skills can be an important factor contributing to hedge funds’ outperformance. In this chapter, we use a unique semiparametric panel data model capable of providing consistent short period estimates of the return correlations with three market factors for a sample of Long/Short equity hedge funds. We find evidence of significant market timing ability by fund managers around market crisis periods. Studying the behavior of individual fund managers, we show that at the 10% significance level, 17.12% of funds exhibit good linear timing skills and 21.32% of funds possess some level of good nonlinear market timing skills. Further, we find that market timing strategies of hedge funds are different in good and bad markets, and that a significant number of managers behave more conservatively when the market return is expected to be far above average and more aggressively when the market return is expected to be far below average. We find that good market timers are also likely to possess good stock selection skills.

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.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues have recently received much attention. This research investigates the daily performance of socially responsible investment (SRI). To do that, the authors construct portfolios consisting of the SRI, non-SRI, and matched non-SRI. The portfolios can be compared with the market benchmark based on α adjusted asset pricing models. Due to using high-frequency data, the authors use ARCH/GARCH to deal with time-varying volatility. Moreover, the authors also utilized Fama–MacBeth pooled regression to confront the SRI stocks and the non-SRI counterpart. In sum, the findings of this study confirm the superior performance of the value-weighted (VW) SRI portfolio against the market. On a head-to-head basis, the SRI yields a higher return than the non-SRI. The results are robust in the quarterly analysis. It is essential for investors that put their money in socially responsible (SR) portfolios to either promote sustainable development or chase a return on it.

The paper uses 101 years of Chilean and international financial assets returns to investigate mean-variance optimal portfolio allocations. The key conclusion is that the share of international unhedged investments is substantial even in minimum risk portfolios (20%), unless the period 1980–2002 is assumed to be drawn from a different distribution and previous history is disregarded. In addition to that, the paper finds that mean-variance optimal investors would have generated substantial demand for an asset replicating the return profile of an efficient pay-as-you-go pension scheme. Labour income and departures from log-normality of returns might, however, affect the latter conclusion.