What Drives ETF Flows?

The value of exchange traded fund (ETF) assets has increased from $66 billion in 2000 to almost a trillion dollars in 2010. We use this massive expansion in ETF assets to study what drives ETF flows. Using a data set of over 500 ETFs from 2001 to 2010, we show that ETF investors chase returns in the same way as mutual fund investors. While there is an active debate about whether return chasing by mutual fund investors represents the pursuit of superior talent, the existence of return chasing in this passively managed environment should not represent a search for skilled managers. We also show that ETF flows increase following high volume, small spreads, and high price/net asset value ratios. Finally, we find little evidence of superior market timing in ETF flows. Our results suggest that return chasing in both mutual funds and ETFs is more likely the result of naïve extrapolation bias on the part of investors that has contributed to the growth of the ETF industry.     

Unskilled fund managers: Replicating active fund performance with few ETFs

This paper uses Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) instead of risk factors as benchmarks to examine active mutual fund performance distribution. While transaction costs are included in the ETF returns, that is not true regarding risk factors, making it more challenging to characterize extraordinary performances via alphas. Assessments are based on the estimation of the skilled funds proportion defined by Barras et al. (2010). After evaluating several ETF combinations, we conclude that sets of 3 to 5 ETFs replicate most levels of active fund performance. Finally, we propose specific ETF selection algorithms, whereby we estimate that 95% of active management funds fail to generate value for their investors. Alphas calculated with ETFs are higher than those using risk factors, and the difference is similar to the transaction costs required for investing in risk factor portfolios (Frazzini et al. (2012)).     

Mutual fund flows and investor returns: An empirical examination of fund investor timing ability

We examine the timing ability of mutual fund investors using cash flow data at the individual fund level. Over 1991–2004 equity fund investor timing decisions reduce fund investor average returns by 1.56% annually. Underperformance due to poor timing is greater in load funds and funds with relatively large risk-adjusted returns. In particular, the magnitude of investor underperformance due to poor timing largely offsets the risk-adjusted alpha gains offered by good-performing funds. Investors in both actively managed funds and index funds exhibit poor investment timing. We demonstrate that our empirical results are consistent with investor return-chasing behavior.     

Active mutual funds: Beware of smart beta ETFs!

Smart beta ETFs have gained tremendous prevalence among investors in recent years. This study provides empirical evidence that a proportion of this fast-paced growth can be attributed to the investor migration from closet factor active mutual funds to smart beta ETFs. Using a sample of US domestic equity active mutual funds and smart beta ETFs from 2000 to 2019, we find that smart beta ETFs offer factor exposures at lower fees and therefore higher risk-adjusted returns than closet factor funds. The investors notice the benefits of smart beta ETFs and replace closet factor funds with these ETFs. Closet factor funds are at higher risks of being replaced when investors are sophisticated, when the market share of smart beta ETFs increases, and after 2012. Our findings illustrate the dynamic changes in investor preference towards investment products that bring similar or greater benefits at a lower price.     

International equity funds,performance, and investor flows: Australian evidence

This is the first paper in the Australian literature to examine the investment performance of actively managed international equity funds (domiciled in Australia). Both institutional and retail international equity funds are assessed together with the impacts of investor fund flows on portfolio returns. Performance is also evaluated using conditional measures that account for public information in the global economy, however, despite an improvement in the measurement of risk-adjusted returns, performance remains consistent with an efficient global market. These findings support prior research, which concludes that active management does not provide investors with superior returns to passive indices. When consideration is given to the liquidity service provided by active managers, fund flows are shown to negatively impact on performance.     

Higher risk,lower returns: What hedge fund investors really earn

The returns of hedge fund investors depend not only on the returns of the funds they hold but also on the timing and magnitude of their capital flows in and out of these funds. We use dollar-weighted returns (a form of Internal Rate of Return (IRR)) to assess the properties of actual investor returns on hedge funds and compare them to buy-and-hold fund returns. Our main finding is that annualized dollar-weighted returns are on the magnitude of 3% to 7% lower than corresponding buy-and-hold fund returns. Using factor models of risk and the estimated dollar-weighted performance gap, we find that the real alpha of hedge fund investors is close to zero. In absolute terms, dollar-weighted returns are reliably lower than the return on the Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 index, and are only marginally higher than the risk-free rate as of the end of 2008. The combined impression from these results is that the return experience of hedge fund investors is much worse than previously thought.     

Does Sentiment Explain Closed-end Fund Discounts? Evidence from Bond Funds

This paper documents that discounts and premia on closed-end bond funds exhibit the same sensitivity to broad market returns as stock fund discounts. Despite this, stock funds sell on average at discounts from net asset value while bond funds sell at small premia. This pattern calls into question the conclusion that the average level of the discount rate can be rationalized by appealing to the systematic nature of discount risk. These results indicate that appeals to investor sentiment, which have been hypothesized as a source of fund discounts, do not fully resolve the puzzle of closed-end fund discounts.     

The efficiency of international information flow: Evidence from the ETF and CEF prices

While similar in their trading and organization, closed-end funds (CEFs) and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) differ in their liquidity and ease of arbitrage. We compare their price transmission dynamics using a sample of funds that invest in foreign securities and are most likely to show the deficiencies in the manner in which they process information. Our analysis shows that ETF returns are more closely related to their portfolio returns than are CEF returns. However, both fund types underreact to portfolio returns but overreact to domestic stock market returns. A simple trading strategy using these results is profitable with roundtrip trading costs less than 1.38% for CEFs and 0.71% for ETFs.     

Rating mutual funds: Construction and information content of an investor-cost based rating of Danish mutual funds

We develop a new rating of mutual funds: the atpRating. The atpRating assigns crowns to each individual mutual fund based upon the costs an investor pays when investing in the fund in relation to what it would cost to invest in the fund's peers. Within each investment category, the rating assigns five crowns to funds with the lowest costs and one crown to funds with the highest costs.We investigate the ability of the atpRating to predict the future performance of a fund. We find that an investor who has invested in the funds with the lowest costs within an investment category would have obtained a risk-adjusted excess return that is approximately 3–4 percentage points higher per annum than if the funds with the highest costs had been invested in.We compare the atpRating with the Morningstar Rating. We show that one reason why the atpRating and the Morningstar Rating contain different information is that the returns Morningstar uses as inputs when rating funds are highly volatile whereas the costs the atpRating uses as inputs when rating funds are highly persistent. In other words, a fund that has low costs one year will most likely also have low costs the following year, whereas the return of a fund in a certain year generally contains only little information about the future return that the fund will generate.Finally, we have information on the investments in different mutual funds made by a small subgroup of investors known to have been exposed to both the atpRating and the Morningstar Rating. We find that investors have clear preferences for funds rated high by both the atpRating and the Morningstar Rating.     

Performance comparison between exchange-traded funds and closed-end country funds

The objective of this study is to compare the risk and return performance of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) available for foreign markets and closed-end country funds. We utilize 29 closed-end country funds (CEFs) for 14 countries over the sample period from April 1996 to December 2001. The performance proxies are mean returns and risk-adjusted returns. Results indicate that ETFs exhibit higher mean returns and higher Sharpe ratios than foreign closed-end funds, while CEFs exhibit negative alphas. This indicates that a passive investment strategy utilizing ETFs may be superior to an active investment strategy using CEFs. The findings reported here offer some insight on the relative advantages of each type of investment. Specifically, there may be some potential for additional types of ETFs that offer higher risk-adjusted returns than closed-end funds. Such ETFs may be able to offer higher risk-adjusted returns as part of an internationally diversified portfolio.     

Can exchange traded funds be used to exploit industry and country momentum?

There is overwhelming empirical evidence on the existence of country and industry momentum effects. This line of research suggests that investors who buy country and industry portfolios with relatively high past returns and sell countries and industries with relatively low past returns will earn positive risk-adjusted returns. These studies focus on country and industry indexes that cannot be traded directly by investors. This raises the question of whether country and industry momentum effects really can be exploited by investors or whether they are illusionary in nature because they exist only on non-tradable assets. We analyze the profitability of country and industry momentum strategies using actual price data on exchange traded funds (ETFs). We find that over the sample periods during which these ETFs were traded, an investor would have been able to exploit country and industry momentum strategies with an excess return of about 5 % per annum. These returns cannot be explained by unconditional exposures to the Fama–French factors. The daily average bid-ask spreads on ETFs are substantially below the implied break-even transaction cost levels. Hence, we conclude that investors who are not willing or able to trade individual stocks may use ETFs to benefit from momentum effects in country and industry portfolios.     

Mutual Fund Performance: An Empirical Decomposition into Stock-Picking Talent, Style, Transactions Costs, and Expenses

We use a new database to perform a comprehensive analysis of the mutual fund industry. We find that funds hold stocks that outperform the market by 1.3 percent per year, but their net returns underperform by one percent. Of the 2.3 percent difference between these results, 0.7 percent is due to the underperformance of nonstock holdings, whereas 1.6 percent is due to expenses and transactions costs. Thus, funds pick stocks well enough to cover their costs. Also, high-turnover funds beat the Vanguard Index 500 fund on a net return basis. Our evidence supports the value of active mutual fund management.     

ETF Competition and Market Quality

This paper examines competition between exchange traded funds (ETFs) that hold nearly identical portfolios of securities. We provide evidence that incumbent‐fund liquidity is negatively affected when a new ETF is added to an asset class. The degradation in liquidity is even more severe whenever both funds follow the same benchmark. We also document a decline in primary‐market activity for the incumbent ETFs after the arrival of new competitors. Furthermore, increasing the number of funds in an asset class does not put downward pressure on fund management fees. Thus, the deterioration in market quality may not be offset by decreasing costs of fund ownership.     

Credit ETFs in Mutual Funds and Corporate Bond Liquidity

We show that high yield (HY) mutual funds own and trade ETFs to manage liquidity needs driven by fund flows, whereas investment grade (IG) funds do not. The use of ETFs by HY mutual funds to manage liquidity shifts some trading away from bonds and into ETFs, which reduces the liquidity of the underlying bonds. This substitution effect outweighs the better-understood inclusion effect, whereby bond liquidity benefits from increased ETF ownership, such that the net effect of ETFs is to reduce HY liquidity. In IG, the substitution effect is not significant and ETFs result in increased bond liquidity.     

HEDGE FUNDS: WHAT DO WE KNOW?

Hedge funds are attracting increased attention because of their reputation for earning superior (risk-adjusted) returns. Hedge Fund Research Inc. estimates that in 2001 there were about 7,000 hedge funds with investor capital of about $600 billion. And yet the diversity of hedge funds, combined with a general lack of transparency, makes the hedge fund industry something of a "black box."
This article provides an overview of the legal structure of hedge funds, the various fund investment strategies, and the existing research on overall hedge fund performance. Without uniform and comprehensive reporting requirements, it is difficult to ascertain the size and scope of hedge fund investments. Nonetheless, current research provides persuasive evidence that hedge funds earn positive risk-adjusted returns, on average, in contrast to their counterparts in the mutual fund industry. In an attempt to explain these higher returns, the authors begin by noting that hedge funds are subject to considerably less regulation than other investment institutions because their client base is limited to wealthy individuals and institutions. Hedge funds can thus employ investment strategies that mutual funds and pension funds are prohibited from pursuing, such as short selling, high leverage, derivatives, concentrated holdings, and limited redemptions. As a result, the funds may be able to earn excess returns by operating in illiquid and specialized markets where there is a shortage of arbitrage capital. At the same time, and perhaps even more important, hedge funds are in a better position than conventional mutual funds to attract skilled managers because of their use of performance-based incentive fee structures.     

The performance of US bond mutual funds

We evaluate the performance of the US bond mutual fund industry using a comprehensive sample of bond funds over a long time period from January 1998 to February 2017. In this one study, we examine bond fund selectivity, market timing and performance persistence. We evaluate bond funds relative to their self-declared benchmarks and in terms of both gross-of-fee returns and net-of-fee returns. We document considerable abnormal performance among funds both to the fund (gross returns) and to the investor (net returns). Bond fund performance is found to be superior in the post financial crisis period. However, past strong performance cannot be relied upon to predict future performance. Finally, while some funds exhibit market timing ability; we find a predominance of negative market timing among US bond mutual funds.     

International Real Estate Mutual Fund Performance: Diversification or Costly Information?

We investigate the net effect between diversification benefit and information cost of international real estate mutual funds from three dimensions: whether investors can benefit from investing in international real estate mutual funds, whether managers of international real estate mutual funds possess superior market knowledge and timing abilities, and whether investors are motivated by returns or diversification. Our findings are threefold. First, the results show that international real estate mutual funds perform better and are less risky than domestic real estate mutual funds before Jun 2007. That is, diversification benefits outweigh the information costs, and investors therefore gain from investing in international real estate mutual funds. However, the benefit is reduced because of the economic shock of sub-prime financial crisis. Second, on average, neither international mutual fund managers nor domestic mutual fund managers possess market timing abilities. Finally, we find that fund flows are driven by investors’ return-chasing behaviors and fund size, but not by diversification purpose.     

Capturing hedge fund risk factor exposures: Hedge fund return replication with ETFs

We develop a new factor selection methodology of spanning the space of hedge fund risk factors with all available exchange traded funds (ETFs). We demonstrate the efficacy of the methodology with out-of-sample individual hedge fund return replication by ETF clone portfolios. This is consistent with our interpretation of ETF returns as proxies to risk factors driving hedge fund returns. We further consider portfolios of “cloneable” and “noncloneable” hedge funds, defined as top and bottom in-sample R² matches, and demonstrate that our ETF clone portfolios slightly outperform cloneable hedge funds out of sample.     

Selecting Australian equity superannuation funds: A retail investor's perspective

In this performance persistence study, two questions are addressed. First, what is the relationship between past fund returns and future performance? Secondly, does a ’hot hand‘ fund selection system deliver economically significant returns to investors? Using a sample of Australian equity superannuation funds over the 1990s, the answers from this study are as follows: on a raw and risk-adjusted return basis the authors find evidence of mean reversion, with prior annual performance having little influence on future fund return. Selecting funds based on a persistence strategy resulted in underperformance of industry and passive returns for the retail superannuation investor over the sample period. The findings of the study have serious implications for financial planning advisers who market superannuation funds based on past performance. The results suggest that previous annual performance has little influence on future returns.     

Do Mutual Funds Profit from the Accruals Anomaly?

Using data on both fund stockholdings and fund returns, we examine whether actively managed equity mutual funds trade on and profit from the accruals anomaly. We find that few, if any, mutual funds trade on the anomaly. The top 10% of mutual funds that have the highest portfolio weights in low‐accruals stocks have a greater, but still relatively small, exposure to low‐accruals stocks. Nonetheless, these funds make significant profit net of actual transaction costs, exhibiting an average Fama‐French three‐factor alpha of 2.83% per year. We also find that these funds are smaller, less diversified, and exhibit higher fund return volatility and higher fund flow volatility.