Mutual Fund Tax Clienteles

Mutual funds are held by investors in taxable and tax‐qualified retirement accounts. We investigate whether the characteristics, investment strategies, and performance of mutual funds held by these diverse tax clienteles differ. Examining both mutual fund distributions and mutual fund holdings, we find that funds held primarily by taxable investors choose investment strategies that result in lower tax burdens than funds held primarily in tax‐qualified accounts. Despite these differences, we find no evidence that any investment constraints that may arise from these tax‐efficient investment strategies result in performance differences between funds held by different tax clienteles.     

Do Focused Funds Offer Superior Performance in an Emerging Market? Evidence from Taiwan's Stock Market

We examine the effects of the number of stock holdings and industry concentration on Taiwan's equity fund performance. The quadratic regression model is applied to explore the optimal number of stock holdings for mutual funds. The empirical results suggest that funds with a smaller number of stock holdings and with a higher level of industry concentration achieve better performance. We also find that mutual fund performance and the number of stock holdings have an inverted U-shaped relationship, and funds that hold twenty-four to twenty-eight stocks can generate superior performance.     

The ABCs of mutual funds: On the introduction of multiple share classes

We study a significant innovation with widespread consequences for the mutual fund industry: the introduction of multiple-class funds that give investors a choice among alternative load and fee structures. The transition to a multiple-class structure represents an important step in the evolution of the mutual fund industry. It also provides a well-controlled setting for research on the structure of funds, on investor clienteles and their impact on fund performance and, more generally, about the manner in which financial innovations tend to be adopted. We develop a simple model of a fund's decision on whether and when to introduce new classes and empirically investigate the model's predictions that: (a) Funds with more skilled management, less sensitivity of flows to performance, smaller size, higher existing loads and membership in larger families are better positioned to benefit and, therefore, more likely to switch to a multiple-class structure earlier; (b) The new classes increase the level and volatility of fund inflow by attracting investors with short and uncertain investment horizons – which, in turn, can negatively impact fund performance. Our empirical results are generally supportive of the model's predictions.     

INVESTOR REACTION TO MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM UK DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

Existing work on the flow–performance relation in mutual funds focuses on the average U.S. investor, obscuring the contributions of different clienteles. We analyze UK data on monthly fund sales and purchases made via seven distinct distribution channels. We show that there exist marked differences in the reaction to fund performance between different types of retail and institutional investors. These differences can be understood by considering the incentives of parties involved in each channel. Our analysis indicates that the well‐documented aggregate net flow–performance convexity in mutual funds is driven by the extreme reaction of retail inflows to favorable performance, particularly from independently advised investors.     

Payoff complementarities and financial fragility: Evidence from mutual fund outflows

The paper provides empirical evidence that strategic complementarities among investors generate fragility in financial markets. Analyzing mutual fund data, we find that, consistent with a theoretical model, funds with illiquid assets (where complementarities are stronger) exhibit stronger sensitivity of outflows to bad past performance than funds with liquid assets. We also find that this pattern disappears in funds where the shareholder base is composed mostly of large investors. We present further evidence that these results are not attributable to alternative explanations based on the informativeness of past performance or on clientele effects. We analyze the implications for funds’ performance and policies.     

Persistent performance in the mutual fund market: Tests with funds and investment advisers

Recent studies of mutual funds have concluded that there is some evidence of superior performance. We test for the existence of superior performance and its persistence with mutual funds and mutual fund investment advisers on a data set of monthly returns from 1979 to 1989 for 1,387 mutual funds grouped by 243 advisers. We find no evidence of superior performance or its persistence but we do find significant evidence of persistence of inferior performance. Consistent with previous studies our findings depend on the benchmark chosen, with multiple benchmarks producing a larger degree of inferior performance.     

Tax planning, regulatory capital planning, and financial reporting strategy for commercial banks

We test whether banks' investment and financing policies canbe explained by tax status. We document changes in bank holdingsof municipal bonds in response to changes in tax rules relatingto deductibility of interest expense. We also document an associationbetween banks' marginal tax rates and their investment and financingdecisions, which is consistent with the existence of tax clienteles.However, banks do not sort themselves perfectly into investmentand financing clienteles because of adjustment costs. We positspecific types of transaction-cost impediments to tax planning,and document that banks apparently trade off these costs againsttax-planning benefits.     

Mutual fund trades and the value of contradictory private information

We investigate the performance of mutual funds that trade using private information. These funds are uniquely identified from a set of 2730 funds with 44,315 fund-periods between 1994 and 2005. We compare the alignment of fund trades with brokers’ recommendations, which we regard as “public information” in the universe of informed and uninformed mutual funds. Funds that systematically trade counter to the public information form a homogenous subset of the privately informed funds. By using private information that contradicts the public information, these funds exhibit a superior average performance. After we control for serial correlation in fund returns, we assess this advantage as being an economically significant 1.7% per annum. We also show empirically that smaller funds are better able to capture the benefit of private information.     

Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds

Recent studies suggest that presence of a disposition effect in a large subset of investors can create stock mispricings, which has serious implications for market efficiency. We examine whether US equity mutual funds are disposition-prone, how that effect influences performance, investor flows and fund survival, and whether the disposition orientation of mutual funds affects stock prices in a sustained manner.We find that about 30% of all funds exhibit some degree of disposition behavior and that such funds underperform funds that are not disposition-prone by 4-6% per year. Moreover, after controlling for performance, tax overhang and other factors that potentially affect flows, disposition-prone funds attract significantly smaller flows than other funds. The results suggest that mutual fund investors are smart enough to minimize investment in disposition-prone funds. Consequently, disposition-prone funds have significantly higher rates of failure than other funds, thereby reducing the impact of such trading behavior on security prices.     

Mutual fund performance when parent firms simultaneously manage hedge funds

This study examines the performance of mutual funds managed by firms that simultaneously manage hedge funds. We find that the reported returns of mutual funds in these “side-by-side” associations with hedge funds significantly underperformed those of mutual funds that shared similar fund and family characteristics but differed in that they were not affiliated with hedge funds. Digging deeper into performance, we find that the underperformance was confined to return gaps, a return measure that captures the impact of unobservable managerial actions. Interestingly, mutual funds with investment styles that were most closely aligned to affiliated hedge funds generated reported-return alphas and return gaps that underperformed by the greatest amount. Finally, we find that side-by-side mutual funds received less of a contribution to performance from IPO underpricing than similar unaffiliated mutual funds or affiliated hedge funds. Evidence does not support the hypothesis that affiliations with hedge funds allow side-by-side mutual funds to attract superior stock-picking talent. Our evidence does not allow us to rule out the possibility that management firms maximized fee income by strategically transferring performance from mutual funds to hedge funds.     

Truth in Mutual Fund Advertising: Evidence on Future Performance and Fund Flows

We examine a sample of 294 mutual funds that are advertised in Barron's or Money magazine. The preadvertisement performance of these funds is significantly higher than that of the benchmarks. We test whether the sponsors select funds to signal continued superior performance or they use the past superior performance to attract more money into the funds. Our analysis shows that there is no superior performance in the postadvertisement period. Thus, the results do not support the signaling hypothesis. On the other hand, we find that the advertised funds attract significantly more money in comparison with a group of control funds.     

Mutual fund performance: false discoveries, bias, and power

We analyze the performance of mutual funds from a multiple inference perspective. When the number of funds is large, random fluctuations will cause some funds falsely to appear to outperform the rest. To account for such “false discoveries,” a multiple inference approach is necessary. Performance evaluation measures are unlikely to be independent across mutual funds. At the same time, the data are typically not sufficient to estimate the dependence structure of performance measures. In addition, the performance evaluation model can be misspecified. We contribute to the existing literature by applying an empirical Bayes approach that offers a possible way to take these factors into account. We also look into the question of statistical power of the performance evaluation model, which has received little attention in mutual fund studies. We find that the assumption of independence of performance evaluation measures results in significant bias, such as over-estimating the number of outperforming mutual funds. Adjusting for the mutual fund investment objective is helpful, but it still does not result in the discovery of a significant number of successful funds. A detailed analysis reveals a very low power of the study. Even if outperformers are present in the sample, they might not be recognized as such and/or too many years of data might be required to single them out.     

The cross-section of mutual fund fee dispersion

In this paper, we empirically analyze the factors affecting the cross section of mutual fund fee dispersion. In the context of equity mutual funds, fee dispersion stems primarily from the heterogeneity of products, clienteles and production functions. However, the relevant theory predicts that search costs can also generate fee dispersion. By controlling for observable sources of heterogeneity, we find that fee dispersion decreases with fund size and age, as well as with the amount of assets under management of the investment company. In addition, we find lower levels of fee dispersion for funds that charge marketing and distribution fees. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that these factors are a proxy for some unobserved source of heterogeneity, our results are also consistent with the theoretical prediction that search costs positively affect fee dispersion.     

Tax Deferral and Mutual Fund Inflows: Evidence from a Quasi‐Natural Experiment

We propose a new method to identify the impact of a change in the tax burden on mutual fund inflows. We use quasi‐experimental data from Italy where, starting from July 2011, the tax regime for domestic mutual funds was changed from an accruals basis to a realisation basis, while the taxation of foreign funds remained on a realisation basis. We find that the reform has had a positive effect on net inflows of Italian funds (the treated group) with respect to foreign funds (the control group). The effect is both economically and statistically significant. Moreover, there is no evidence that the increase in the demand for Italian funds came at the expense of foreign funds.     

INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL FUNDS

In this paper we add several new perspectives to the growing body of empirical evidence on the investment performance of international mutual funds by applying a pooled cross-sectional/time-series regression methodology to a large data base over an extended period. Risk-adjusted and unadjusted investment returns are not related to whether a fund is load or no-load, and asset size, expense ratios, and turnover rates are not related to investment performance. We find no reward for paying a load fee when investing in mutual funds. It is noteworthy that performance is not affected by fund size, given the explosive growth of international mutual funds.     

Management of flow risk in mutual funds

This paper is the first to relate the investment practices of U.S. equity mutual funds to their management of flow risk, defined as the adverse effect of investor in- and outflows on fund performance. Using a comprehensive merged sample of 2585 actively managed U.S. domestic equity funds from the CRSP mutual fund database and the SEC’s regulatory N-SAR filings, we are the first to detect differences in funds’ responses to flow risk. We find that funds using derivatives, such as options and futures on indices as well as individual stocks, have higher performance than non-using funds. We further show that this outperformance is the result of superior flow risk management using these derivatives and not a result of derivatives based stock-picking or market-timing activities. Overall, our findings document that superior flow management ability is valuable when managing open-end mutual funds and should be considered by investors and researches when evaluating fund performance.     

Behavioural analysis of socially responsible investment managers: specialists versus non-specialists

We analyse the performance and performance persistence of US socially responsible investment (SRI) managers from a managers’ perspective, differentiating between specialist managers (only running SRI mutual funds) and non-specialists (running SRI and conventional mutual funds). We find that the SRI fund nature has a significantly negative influence on the non-specialist performance. Furthermore, top managers of both groups persistently outperform SRI funds. However, non-specialist managers obtain superior performance to specialist managers, perhaps because of learning synergies in both fund niches. Results also show more persistence with non-specialists, especially with regard to conventional mutual funds.     

Timing and selectivity of mutual fund managers: An empirical test of the behavioral decision-making theory

Classical decision-making theory suggests that decisions made by an individual or a team of decision makers should lead to the same performance outcome. Conversely, behavioral decision-making theory argues that decisions made by teams result in superior micro or macro forecasts and performance outcomes. Our tests using mutual funds support the classical decision-making theory. The empirical results are time invariant and robust with respect to the selected index or model specification.     

Is Concentration a Good Idea? Evidence from Active Fund Management

In this paper, we examine whether mutual fund managers in Taiwan produce superior performance through concentrated investment strategy, and find that mutual funds with higher degree of concentration have higher investment performance and lower risk during the period 2001–2009. Moreover, when the degree of industry concentration of fund holdings is higher, there is less impact on stock market performance. However, the premium of the market portfolio has more impact on the performance of funds when there is lower degree of industry concentration. We also find that the stock-picking and market-timing abilities of mutual fund managers result in funds with high degree of industry concentration having more returns and lower risks than the funds with low degree of industry concentration.     

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND EXPENSES

Mutual fund investors are subjected to many fees and expenses related to both the management of the fund assets and the sale and distribution of the fund's shares. In recent years these expenses have increased as a percentage of assets. The preoccupation of mutual fund investors with using performance evaluation as a selection criterion is misguided because of the volatility of investment returns. Whether the fund's performance is due to superior management or just good luck is difficult to determine. On the other hand, mutual fund expenses are stable. As such, the mutual fund investor should pursue a policy of choosing funds with low expenses. In this paper we conduct an empirical analysis of these expenses. The results of our analysis of equity funds suggest that expense-conscious investors should look at the fund size, age, turnover ratio, cash ratio, and existence of a 12b-1 fee as key determinants of expenses. Our analysis of bond funds suggests that the key factors are the fund's sales charge, weighted average maturity, size, and existence of a 12b-1 fee.