Search results

This study is about the determinants of cash holding and impact of cash holding on mutual funds’ performance. In addition, the study analyzes the impact of performance-related determinants of cash holding on funds' performance.

Panel data of ten years of 190 open-end mutual funds are analyzed through fixed effect regression technique. The risk-adjusted funds' performance of cash based portfolios is computed through capital asset pricing model (CAPM) (1964), Fama and French (1993) and Carhart (1997) models.

The results indicate that small size funds, high charging front-end load funds, high turnover ratio funds, high 12-month fund returns run up, high dividend paying funds and high redemption level funds hold more cash for precautionary purpose to avoid costs of cash short-falls. Further, monthly average raw returns and risk-adjusted performance of funds with the lowest raw and residual cash holding are found higher than the funds with the highest cash holding. An increase in cash is found to dilute performance.

This is a pioneer study in a corporate environment with shallow capital market, reliance of businesses on bank credit, firms exposed to agency issues, wealth expropriations and existence of business groups with political linkages but with opportunities of investments due to expected favorable geo-socio-political situation. The study generates outcomes relevant for other similar economies.

This paper aims to summarize amendments to Rule 22c‐2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the “redemption fee rule”, adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2006.

Provides background to the redemption fee rule, defines financial intermediaries and intermediary chains, and discusses how funds are expected to implement the rule and associated frequent trading policies.

Under the redemption fee rule, the boards of most mutual funds are required to consider whether to implement a fee of up to 2 percent of the value of any shares redeemed by a customer from a fund within a short time after purchase. Amendments to the rule clarify operation of the rule and reduce mutual funds' costs in complying with it.

Outlines the requirements of the amendments to Rule 22c‐2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

To explain the background and details of the responses from the Staff of the Division of Investment Management of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to certain frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the July 23, 2014 amendments to Rule 2a-7 and other rules that govern money market funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act).

In July 2014, the SEC adopted sweeping amendments to Rule 2a-7 and other rules that govern money market funds under the 1940 Act (Amendments). The Amendments (i) require “institutional” money funds to operate with a floating net asset value (NAV), rounded to the fourth decimal place (e.g. $1.0000) and (ii) permit (and, under certain circumstances, require) all money funds to impose a “liquidity fee” (up to 2 per cent) and/or “redemption gate,” once weekly liquidity levels fall below the required regulatory threshold. The article briefly discusses the background and the events leading up to the FAQs and describes key responses from the Staff on a variety of issues.

The Amendments set forth sweeping changes to money fund regulation and will have a profound effect on the money fund industry. Although the most significant provisions of the Amendments – the floating NAV requirement and the imposition of liquidity fees and redemption gates – will not go into effect for two years, the changes to the industry will be apparent almost immediately. The FAQs provide clarity on a number of issues that are relevant to the money fund industry.

Money fund managers and boards of directors should begin assessing the potential impact of the Amendments and develop a schedule to come into compliance.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The relevance of this study lies in the search for alternative sales channels, not originally intended for this end, at a time of general crisis within the tourism sector. In spite of the great number of companies from the tourism sector that join multi‐sponsor loyalty platforms and the high volume of tourism service offers (flights, journeys, hotel accommodation, etc.) made and accepted through this medium, little is known about basic aspects for the management of such companies' participation. The paper aims to investigate this issue.

Using data from a leading programme in the Spanish market over a wide period of time – ten years and nearly 100,000 point redemptions have been analysed – additional sales in different tourism service categories, related with the redemption of points, have been evaluated by comparing them with other offers made.

Tourism service offers are indeed one of the reward choices most popular among cardholders. In order to obtain tourism offers the consumer usually makes up their points total in the programme to the required level by making additional payments. It is important to classify cardholders according to their point credit‐rating (the rate at which they accumulate points in the programme) and make them offers in accordance with their preferences.

The benefits that a tourism service provider may obtain by joining a multi‐sponsor loyalty programme and including its services as reward offers are discussed. For programme managers information and conclusions relevant to reward catalogue design are also expounded.

This paper helps tourism service providers to take decisions with regard to joining a multi‐sponsor loyalty programme by reviewing important issues relating to both point redemption and sales.

This paper aims to investigate the redemption of promotional offers in a mobile service context. It specifically studies how mobile coupon redemption depends on the type of product offered, the convenience of accessing a retailer and the consumer’s shopping motivation. Retailers increasingly use mobile coupon services as a complementary channel to send promotional offers to consumers.

Two studies examine how the three factors interact in determining coupon redemption. Both involve a scenario-based experiment. Participants are over 750 members of an online panel in the USA.

The results show that when the retailer offers a hedonic product, consumers’ shopping motivation matters more, whereas when the retailer offers a utilitarian product, consumers’ location dominates their redemption intentions.

One limitation of this research is the use of hypothetical scenarios. Although this limitation was addressed by conducting a quasi-experiment, future research could be carried out using a field experiment.

Results suggest that in a mobile channel, personalization of promotions is more important for utilitarian shoppers than for hedonic shoppers.

Drawing on the theories of regulatory focus and preference for the status quo, this paper posits that mobile coupon redemption is determined by whether the offer requires consumers to divert from their focal shopping motivation (i.e. their status quo). The authors explain this difference by showing the mediating role of regulatory fit.

To discuss issues that real estate fund sponsors may encounter due to investor liquidity constraints amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (such as investors seeking redemptions or transfers) and to provide guidance on potential ways that fund sponsors can prepare for, and respond to, such inquiries while at the same time addressing their fund’s liquidity needs (such as by utilizing subscription-secured credit facilities).

The article identifies the types of requests that investors may make to address their internal liquidity constraints, discusses contractual, legal, regulatory and business issues that fund sponsors should consider in responding to such requests and provides some alternatives for fund sponsors to consider allowing them to be responsive to investor liquidity concerns while also addressing fund capital needs.

The article finds that there are specific actions which fund sponsors should take in anticipating, and responding to, investor liquidity requests, such as reviewing partnership documents and credit facility documents and considering consequences in respect of ERISA, tax and compliance with applicable securities laws. The article also finds that specific affirmative actions by fund sponsors, such as increased borrowings under credit facilities, making distributions that are recallable and favoring transfers over withdrawals or redemptions may assist fund sponsors in preserving capital while addressing investor liquidity requests.

Fund sponsors should carefully review their fund documentation and determine their options and requirements as they pertain to potential liquidity requests. Fund sponsors should be careful to avoid foot-faults under their fund documents and credit facility agreements.

Practical guidance from experienced fund formation, securities law, tax, ERISA and finance lawyers.

The paper examines how equity mutual funds manage their liquidity. Specifically, the authors investigate what strategies fund managers use to meet investor redemption demand, whether these strategies vary over time, whether different type of funds employ different liquidation practices in response to fund outflows, and whether liquidity strategies impact fund performance.

This study uses a sample of U.S. actively managed equity funds over the period 1990–2019. The authors use three different measures to capture funds' liquidity management practices. The authors examine the relationship between fund liquidity measures and net flow by estimating panel regressions over the entire sample period, on 2 sub-sample periods of different market conditions measured by the magnitude of implied market volatility (VIX), and on 2 sub-samples of funds with different liquidity profiles. The authors also examine the relationship between funds liquidity status and near-term performance through both a portfolio approach and regression analysis.

The authors find that on average, mutual funds reduce their cash position and the most liquid asset holdings to meet investor redemption demand. Furthermore, the authors find that fund managers choose different liquidity strategies under different market conditions. During highly volatile markets, mutual funds use cash and their most liquid assets to meet redemption demand while maintaining their portfolio liquidity. During low volatility markets, mutual funds rely heavily on cash but less on liquidity assets and tend to increase their portfolio illiquidity. Upon further examination of funds across portfolio liquidity profiles, the authors find that liquid funds increase portfolio liquidity when facing outflows, whereas illiquid funds maintain their portfolio liquidity position. The different liquidity strategies have significant impact on funds' near-term performance. Specifically, liquid funds underperform illiquid funds following the increase in their portfolio liquidity.

This paper contributes to the literature on liquidity management by asset managers by taking a holistic approach to examine funds liquidation practice at the portfolio holdings level. Considering the recent increase in market volatility, mutual fund liquidity management has drawn an increasing share of interest and attention from policy makers, investment professionals, and academia. This study covers both uncertain and stable market states during a long sample period and provides empirical evidence on the flow-induced liquidation decisions by equity mutual funds. In addition, this paper also contributes to the literature on mutual fund performance by providing evidence that funds' liquidity strategies significantly impact their near-term performance.

The authors develop a logit modeling approach, designed for application to UPC scanner panel data, to assess the effects of coupon promotions on consumer brand choice. The effects of coupon promotions are captured via two measures: the prevailing level of availability and the prevailing face value of coupons for each brand. Both of these measures are derived from coupon redemptions of a separate sample of households. The approach captures both the advertising effect and the price discount incentive of a coupon. It also avoids drawbacks of previous choice models which have incorporated coupon effects by subtracting the value of a redeemed coupon from the price of the brand purchased. The authors illustrate their modeling approach on data for two product categories: catsup (light coupon usage) and liquid laundry detergent (heavy coupon usage). Findings are reported for coupon users and non‐users as well as across latent segments.

The aim of this research is to quantitatively synthesize empirical findings of the effect of discount level on consumer response to the coupon.

The authors used the meta-analysis method to synthesize coupons' discount level effects on consumer response. Meta-regression was used to examine the moderating factors that affect the relationship between discount level and consumer response.

The average effect size of the discount level is 0.331, indicating that higher discount levels lead to higher consumer responses. The effect of discount level on consumer response to the coupon is stronger when the discount is displayed in proportion format (vs amount format), when consumers are distant (vs near) to the coupon-issuing stores, and when consumers have not opted-in to receive promotional information. The discount level effect is weaker for coupons that can be redeemed online (vs offline only), for hedonic products (vs utilitarian products) and for products of real brands.

From information processing and cost–benefit trade-off perspectives, this research proposes a comprehensive research framework that synthesizes a variety of contextual factors. It identifies several contextual factors that may reconcile several inconsistent findings in the existing literature. It also addresses how the new-technology related factors affect coupon redemption under different discount levels.