The Persistence of Mutual Fund Performance

This paper analyzes how mutual fund performance relates to past performance. These tests are based on a multiple portfolio benchmark that was formed on the basis of securities characteristics. We find evidence that differences in performance between funds persist over time and that this persistence is consistent with the ability of fund managers to earn abnormal returns.     

Returns from Investing in Equity Mutual Funds 1971 to 1991

Several recent studies suggest that equity mutual fund managers achieve superior returns and that considerable persistence in performance exists. This study utilizes a unique data set including returns from all equity mutual funds existing each year. These data enable us more precisely to examine performance and the extent of survivorship bias. In the aggregate, funds have underperformed benchmark portfolios both after management expenses and even gross of expenses. Survivorship bias appears to be more important than other studies have estimated. Moreover, while considerable performance persistence existed during the 1970s, there was no consistency in fund returns during the 1980s.     

European Mutual Fund Performance

This paper presents an overview of the European mutual fund industry and investigates mutual fund performance using a survivorship bias controlled sample of 506 funds from the five most important mutual fund countries. The latter is done using the Carhart (1997) 4-factor asset-pricing model. In addition we investigate whether European fund managers exhibit 'hot hands', persistence in performance. Finally the influence of fund characteristics on risk-adjusted performance is considered. Our overall results suggest that European mutual funds, and especially small cap funds are able to add value, as indicated by their positive after cost alphas. If we add back management fees, four out of five countries exhibit significant out-performance at an aggregate level. Finally, we detect strong persistence in mean returns for funds investing in the UK. Our results deviate from most US studies that argue mutual funds under-perform the market by the amount of expenses they charge.     

Closed-End Fund Expenses and Investment Selection

Investment returns on closed‐end funds are highly volatile. Because expenses have a definite negative impact on closed‐end fund returns, investors should include the expense ratio as a criterion for fund selection in addition to performance, investment objective, and risk of the fund. This paper constructs a model of the expense ratio of closed‐end funds to explain cross‐sectional differences in the expense ratios for the period between 1989–1996. We relate closed‐end fund expenses to fund characteristics and identify the factors that can help investors choose low expense closed‐end funds.     

Conditional performance evaluation for German equity mutual funds

We investigate the conditional performance of a sample of German equity mutual funds over the period from 1994 to 2003 using both the beta-pricing approach and the stochastic discount factor (SDF) framework. On average, mutual funds cannot generate excess returns relative to their benchmark that are large enough to cover their total expenses. Compared to unconditional alphas, fund performance sharply deteriorates when we measure conditional alphas. Given that stock returns are to some extent predictable based on publicly available information, conditional performance evaluation raises the benchmark for active fund managers because it gives them no credit for exploiting readily available information. Underperformance is more pronounced in the SDF framework than in beta-pricing models. The fund performance measures derived from alternative model specifications differ depending on the number of primitive assets taken to calibrate the SDF as well as the number of instrument variables used to scale assets and/or factors.     

Measuring bond mutual fund performance with portfolio characteristics

This paper studies the performance of U.S. bond mutual funds using measures constructed from a novel data set of portfolio weights. Active fund managers exhibit outperformance before costs and fees generating, on average, gross returns of 1% per annum over the benchmark portfolio constructed using past holdings (approximately the same magnitude as expenses and transaction costs combined). This suggests that fund managers are able to earn back their fees and costs. There is evidence of neutral ability to time different portfolio allocations (sector, credit quality, and portfolio maturity allocations) and only a subgroup of bond funds exhibit successful timing ability. One performance measure based on portfolio holdings predicts future fund performance and provides information not contained in the standard measures. These results provide the first evidence of the value of active management in bond mutual funds.     

Real Estate Fund Flows and the Flow-Performance Relationship

Convexity in the flow-performance relationship of traditional asset class mutual funds is widely documented, however it cannot be assumed to hold for alternative asset classes. This paper addresses this shortcoming in the literature by examining the flow-performance relationship for real estate funds, specifically open-end, direct-property funds. This investment vehicle is designed to provide the risk-return benefits of private market real estate and is available to retail investors in many countries across the globe. An understanding of fund flow dynamics associated with this investment vehicle is of particular interest due to the liquidity risk associated with holding an inherently illiquid asset in an open-end structure. Our analysis draws on the theoretical foundations provided in the literature on mutual fund flows, performance chasing, liquidity risk, participation costs and dynamics across market cycles. We focus on German real estate funds from 1990 to 2010 as this is the largest market globally and there is a high level of confidence in the data. The results show that real estate fund investors chase past performance at the aggregate level and the relationship between flows and relative performance is asymmetric (i.e., convex) at the individual fund level. Fund-level liquidity risk tends to weaken convexity, while sensitivity increases with higher participation costs. We find the flow-performance relationship varies across time, though our interpretation is asset and investment vehicle specific. The implications are applicable to investors and fund managers of open-end, direct-property funds and, more broadly, other alternative asset funds where the underlying asset may not be liquid.     

Risk-taking and performance of government bond mutual funds

This paper investigates the risk exposures of government bond mutual funds and how risk-taking behavior affects fund performance. Government bond mutual funds often outperform their respective benchmark bond indexes before but not after adjusting for bond market risk factors. We show that the risk-taking behavior of fund managers helps to explain the different performances of government bond funds with and without controlling for the risk factors. Our results suggest that risk-taking leads to higher returns relative to benchmarks in normal risk periods but lower returns in high risk periods, suggesting that fund managers consistently take risky bets in fund management. We further show that the risk-taking of government bond funds is persistent and that investors typically have no ability to differentiate between the skill and risk components of fund performance. These findings suggest why fund managers have incentives to take consistently risky positions.     

Alpha and Persistence in Real Estate Fund Performance

This paper investigates whether fund managers investing in the direct real estate market can systematically and persistently deliver superior risk-adjusted returns. The research that has been published has typically focused on the performance of managers trading public real estate securities. Our study draws on a unique data set of commercial real estate funds collated by the Investment Property Databank (IPD) in the United Kingdom, covering up to 280 funds over the period 1981 to 2006. The widespread finding is that very few managers appear to be able to generate excess risk-adjusted returns. Furthermore, there is little evidence of performance persistence in either fund returns or risk-adjusted fund returns.     

Mutual Fund Incubation

Incubation is a strategy for initiating new funds, where multiple funds are started privately, and, at the end of an evaluation period, some are opened to the public. Consistent with incubation being used by fund families to increase performance and attract flows, funds in incubation outperform nonincubated funds by 3.5% risk‐adjusted, and when they are opened to the public they attract higher flows. Postincubation, however, this outperformance disappears. This performance reversal imparts an upward bias to returns that is not removed by a fund size filter. Fund age and ticker creation date filters, however, eliminate the bias.     

THE COST OF MUTUAL FUND DISTRIBUTION FEES

Many individuals purchase shares in mutual funds as investments. With a lack of evidence supporting performance persistence in fund returns, investors should consider expenses as a fund-selection tool since fund expenses have a negative effect on fund returns. One of the largest expenses incurred by fund investors is distribution expenses, which include both load charges and annual fees. Close to two-thirds of all equity funds charge investors for fund distribution. The true cost of these distribution fees to investors is hard to measure because a myriad of distribution arrangements have evolved that vary both the timing and magnitude of distribution charges. We derive a simple methodology that expresses the present value of distribution costs as a percentage of the original investment in fund shares for any expected holding period. This methodology allows direct comparison of the effect on investors of distribution fees for mutual funds with different types of sales arrangements.     

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.     

Effects of Market Segmentation and Bank Concentration on Mutual Fund Expenses and Returns: Evidence from Finland

A tremendous amount of research examines US mutual funds, but fund markets also thrive in other countries. However, research about these fast growing markets is lacking. This study addresses Finnish funds. Fast growth of the Finnish fund industry, strong bank dominance in the industry and recent EU membership make it an interesting market to examine. The Finnish fund market is also of particular interest since it had the fastest growth among the EU countries during 1996–2000. We find evidence that bank‐managed and older funds charge higher expenses but investors are not compensated for paying higher expenses with higher risk‐adjusted returns, suggesting a potential agency problem. Overall, Finnish fund expenses have decreased over time, consistent with EU membership reducing market segmentation and generating competition.     

On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance

Using a sample free of survivor bias, I demonstrate that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses almost completely explain persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk-adjusted returns. Hendricks, Patel and Zeckhauser's (1993) “hot hands” result is mostly driven by the one-year momentum effect of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) , but individual funds do not earn higher returns from following the momentum strategy in stocks. The only significant persistence not explained is concentrated in strong underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds. The results do not support the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers.     

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.     

Seasonality, Market Timing and Performance Amongst Benchmarks and Mutual Fund Evaluation

Abstract:  Mutual fund performance is normally measured by comparing results of active management with those obtained by one or several benchmarks that should represent the fund's investment. In this context, this paper examines the effect on mutual fund assessment if a relevant benchmark is omitted. This effect is analysed in three elements of active management: stock selection, market timing, and seasonality. The latter is defined as fund management at specific moments of time with the objective of achieving positive abnormal returns to improve performance. For a sample of Spanish mutual funds, we find that the omission of style benchmarks, particularly that corresponding to small-cap stocks, leads to greater evidence of negative market timing and positive seasonality at year beginning. However, the positive abnormal returns of the seasonality at year end, month end and especially at the beginning of July hold regardless of benchmark omission. The paper therefore also analyses the relation between performance and seasonality, finding that positive seasonality at year beginning and at July beginning improves performance; however, at other moments it implies a possible window dressing strategy in mutual fund management.     

Luck versus Skill in the Cross‐Section of Mutual Fund Returns

The aggregate portfolio of actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds is close to the market portfolio, but the high costs of active management show up intact as lower returns to investors. Bootstrap simulations suggest that few funds produce benchmark‐adjusted expected returns sufficient to cover their costs. If we add back the costs in fund expense ratios, there is evidence of inferior and superior performance (nonzero true α) in the extreme tails of the cross‐section of mutual fund α estimates.     

The performance of global bond mutual funds

This paper studies the risk and return characteristics of global bond mutual funds during 1988–95. These actively managed funds did not demonstrate superior performance, net of expenses, against a wide range of benchmarks and performance was negatively related to fund expenses. During the sample period, returns on global bond funds were sensitive to exchange rate movements, even after controlling for local currency returns on country bond indices. The funds had high exposure to the European, the Canadian, and the US bond markets and were least sensitive to the Japanese Bond index and movements in Japanese Yen. The funds did not outperform a US Bond index, suggesting that expenses might have outweighed diversification benefits during the sample period.     

Taiwanese Mutual Fund Performance Under Different Central Bank of China Monetary Policy Environments

This study examines the performance of mutual funds under different Central Bank of China monetary policy environments in the emerging Taiwan market. To measure monetary policy changes effectively, we exploit changes in the discount rate and further categorize the monetary environment as either restrictive or expansive. We consider a restrictive monetary environment to be a period in which the discount rate rises, whereas an expansive monetary condition is a period in which the discount rate drops. It is found that all mutual funds, both domestic and international funds, exhibit a higher mean return, lower risk, and higher Sharpe and Treynor ratios under expansive monetary policy environments. Regression results show that domestic mutual fund returns are related significantly to local monetary policy. Furthermore, after controlling for the possible effect of macro factors on the association between the monetary policy dummy variable and mutual fund returns, the significant influence of monetary policy on domestic mutual fund returns remains robust. In contrast, changes in U.S. monetary policy stringency, in general, do not affect the performance of either domestic or international mutual funds in Taiwan.     

How Investors Interpret Past Fund Returns

The literature documents a convex relation between past returns and fund flows of mutual funds. We show this to be consistent with fund incentives, because funds discard exactly those strategies which underperform. Past returns tell less about the future performance of funds which discard, so flows are less sensitive to them when they are poor. Our model predicts that strategy changes only occur after bad performance, and that bad performers who change strategy have dollar flow and future performance that are less sensitive to current performance than those that do not. Empirical tests support both predictions.