The performance of precious-metal mutual funds: Does uncertainty matter?

We studied the relative risk-adjusted returns and downside risk performance of precious-metal mutual funds (PMFs) in different uncertainty periods (pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis) using propensity score matching techniques and difference-in-differences matching regression. For a sample of PMFs and global corporate funds quoted in USD over the period January 2005 to June 2015, we found that the relative performance of PMFs differed across uncertainty periods. Thus, they performed similarly to corporate funds in the pre-crisis period, they outperformed corporate funds regarding risk-adjusted returns but underperformed in terms of downside risk in the crisis period and they displayed a similar risk-return performance to corporate funds in the post-crisis period. Difference-in-difference estimates indicate that a shift from low to high uncertainty had a positive impact on risk-adjusted returns for PMFs, whereas this advantage dissipated when uncertainty was reduced. However, fluctuations in uncertainty had mixed effects on the relative downside risk associated with PMFs. This evidence has implications for investors who seek to gain exposure to precious metals using PMFs.     

Do risk management practices work? Evidence from hedge funds

We examine hedge fund risk management practices and their association with left-tail risk during the 2008 financial crisis. Consistent with risk management practices reducing left-tail risk, funds in our sample that use formal risk models performed significantly better in the extreme down months of 2008. We find no evidence that having either position limits or a dedicated head of risk management is associated with reduced left-tail risk. Funds employing value at risk models had more accurate expectations of how they would perform in a short-term equity bear market.     

Fund selection,style allocation,and active management abilities: Evidence from funds of hedge funds’ holdings

This study examines whether funds of hedge funds (FOHFs) provide superior before-fee performance through managers’ fund selection, style allocation, and active management abilities. Using reported holdings of Securities and Exchange Commission–registered FOHFs, we find that FOHF managers have fund selection abilities, as hedge funds held by FOHFs outperform their style indices and over half of the individual hedge funds in the Lipper Trading Advisor Selection System (TASS) database. We also find that FOHF managers add value through active management of FOHFs’ holdings, while evidence on their style allocation abilities is mixed. Our findings suggest that FOHFs generate superior before-fee performance and that FOHF managers’ skillset is broader than previously documented. Thus, our study helps explain why FOHFs continue to survive and suggests that FOHF fee structure reform merits consideration.     

Disclosing conflicts of interest – Do experience and reputation matter?

In a controlled laboratory experiment, we investigate the effects of disclosing conflicts of interest on the reporting behaviour of information providers. First, we replicate the findings of Cain, Loewenstein, and Moore (Cain, D.M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D.A. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies 34, 1–25) that such disclosure can trigger more biased reporting, since it removes moral concerns. Second, we show that this effect diminishes or even reverts with experience and reputation. Third, we observe that non-disclosure can have the positive effect of facilitating the formation of reputation.     

Are mutual funds sitting ducks?

We find that patient traders profit from the predictable, flow-induced trades of mutual funds. In anticipation of a 1%-of-volume change in mutual fund flows into a stock next quarter, the institutions in the same 13F category as hedge funds trade 0.29–0.45% of volume in the current quarter. A third of the trading is associated with the subset of 504 identified hedge funds. The effect is stronger when quarterly mutual fund portfolio disclosure is required and among hedge funds with more patient capital. A one standard deviation higher measure of anticipatory trading by a hedge fund is associated with a 0.9% higher annualized four-factor alpha. A one standard deviation higher measure of anticipation of a mutual fund's trades by institutions is associated with a 0.07–0.15% lower annualized four-factor alpha. The effect is stronger for more constrained mutual funds.     

Should investors invest in hedge fund-like mutual funds? Evidence from the 2007 financial crisis

This study empirically examines the value added for investors during the 2007–2009 financial crisis from hedge fund-like equity mutual funds, including 130/30, market neutral, and long/short equity funds. We find that based on the information ratio, all market neutral funds, top 90% of long/short funds, and top 25% of 130/30 funds outperform a long-only passive index fund over the crisis period. However, we find little evidence of abnormal performance by the average and median funds in our sample, based on either unconditional or conditional four-factor alphas. The reason for the overall under-performance in the crisis period is that while short positions taken by these funds do generate alpha, the gain from their short positions is not sufficiently large to offset the loss from their long positions. Finally, the abnormal performance of short positions is found to be attributable to managers’ characteristic-adjusted and industry-adjusted stock selection skills. One implication of this study is that even though market neutral and long/short funds on average may not generate alpha, investors can benefit from holding these funds, especially the former, that can provide a hedge against down markets due to their low betas and that can be useful for asset allocation.     

Can hedge funds time market liquidity?

We explore a new dimension of fund managers' timing ability by examining whether they can time market liquidity through adjusting their portfolios' market exposure as aggregate liquidity conditions change. Using a large sample of hedge funds, we find strong evidence of liquidity timing. A bootstrap analysis suggests that top-ranked liquidity timers cannot be attributed to pure luck. In out-of-sample tests, top liquidity timers outperform bottom timers by 4.0–5.5% annually on a risk-adjusted basis. We also find that it is important to distinguish liquidity timing from liquidity reaction, which primarily relies on public information. Our results are robust to alternative explanations, hedge fund data biases, and the use of alternative timing models, risk factors, and liquidity measures. The findings highlight the importance of understanding and incorporating market liquidity conditions in investment decision making.     

Does mutual fund ownership reduce stock price clustering? Evidence from active and index funds

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - The literature is rich with examples of price clustering in financial markets. This study focuses on the relation between mutual fund ownership (both...     

Can mutual funds time investor sentiment?

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - This paper examines the ability of mutual fund managers to time aggregate investor sentiment. Our results indicate that mutual fund managers alter...     

Are hedge funds active market liquidity timers?

This paper investigates liquidity timing behaviour of hedge funds that invest globally in foreign investment assets. We expect these hedge funds to manage currencies exposure differently, depending on the extent they treat them as an asset class. In this paper, we investigate if actively timing foreign exchange (FX) liquidity adds value to hedge funds' investments. Unlike the existing studies where fund managers are assumed to either time or not time the market over the entire study period, we argue that fund managers may strategically choose to be active market liquidity timers based on the market condition at the time. To test this hypothesis, we develop a state-dependent liquidity timing model embedded with a Markov regime switching process and identify changes in the FX liquidity timing behaviour among the Global Derivatives hedge funds over an eighteen-year period. Our findings reveal that such regime changes in timing behaviour are driven by the underlying FX liquidity condition. A further analysis to compare the changes in the timing behaviour over time shows that hedge funds that are active market liquidity timers outperform those that engage in liquidity timing less frequently in all strategies categories.     

Do hedge funds dynamically manage systematic risk?

Defining systematic risk management (SRM) skill as persistently low fund systematic risk, we find evidence of time varying allocation of hedge fund management effort across the business cycle. In weak market states, skilled managers focus on minimization of systematic risk via dynamic reallocations across asset classes at the cost of fund alpha and foregoing market timing opportunities. As markets strengthen, attention shifts to asset selection within consistent asset classes. The superior performance of low systematic risk funds previously documented arises due to the superior asset selection ability of managers in strong market states. Incremental allocations by investors arise due to this superior performance and not due to recognition of SRM skill.     

Should hedge funds be cautious reporting high returns?

In a recent article, Schuster and Auer (2012) show that fund managers with a certain positive performance need to be aware of the fact that too high prospective excess returns can lower the empirical Sharpe ratio of their funds. In this note, we investigate the empirical relevance of this effect. We analyse whether hedge funds being evaluated on the basis of the Sharpe ratio negatively influence their performance by reporting too high returns. Our results show that a economically significant number of hedge funds listed in the CISDM hedge fund database has at least once reported a high return causing this effect.     

Does auditor choice matter to foreign investors? Evidence from foreign mutual funds worldwide

This study explores whether a firm’s auditor choice affects its ability to access foreign equity capital. Using the equity holdings of 35,665 foreign mutual funds from 30 countries for the period 1998–2009, we find evidence that appointing a Big 4 auditor is associated with the increased level of foreign mutual fund ownership in firms. Our results are robust when conditioned on firm-level information asymmetries, country-level information disclosure quality, and when employing the Enron–Andersen fiasco as the natural experiment. Furthermore, appointing Big 4 auditors is particularly important for firms to attract foreign capital during the 2008 global financial crisis.     

Bank affiliation and mutual funds’ trading strategy distinctiveness

This study investigates the effect of commercial bank affiliation on mutual fund trading strategy distinctiveness. We find that bank affiliation has a significantly positive relationship with mutual funds’ unique investment strategies, and this phenomenon exhibits better performance, supporting the benefits of bank affiliation. This association is most pronounced around macroeconomic releases, during high economic policy uncertainty periods, and among funds located within a close distance from their parent bank headquarters. Further analysis indicates that the more talented affiliated fund managers tend to pursue the distinctive strategy. Therefore, our evidence reveals that the underlying mechanisms are that affiliated funds own information advantages or hire more skilled fund managers due to the unique position of commercial banks in the economy. Finally, our results suggest that affiliated funds with a higher Strategy Distinctiveness Index attract stronger net inflows and are less exposed to risks. Our findings remain unchanged after several robustness tests.     

Does prudential regulation contribute to effective measurement and management of interest rate risk? Evidence from Italian banks

This paper contributes to prior literature and to the current debate concerning recent revisions of the regulatory approach to measuring bank exposure to interest rate risk in the banking book by focusing on assessment of the appropriate amount of capital banks should set aside against this specific risk. We first discuss how banks might develop internal measurement systems to model changes in interest rates and measure their exposure to interest rate risk that are more refined and effective than are regulatory methodologies. We then develop a backtesting framework to test the consistency of methodology results with actual bank risk exposure. Using a representative sample of Italian banks between 2006 and 2013, our empirical analysis supports the need to improve the standardized shock currently enforced by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It also provides useful insights for properly measuring the amount of capital to cover interest rate risk that is sufficient to ensure both financial system functioning and banking stability.     

Do hedge funds trade on private information? Evidence from syndicated lending and short-selling

This paper investigates an important contemporary issue relating to the involvement of hedge funds in the syndicated loan market. In particular, we investigate the potential conflicts of interest that arise when hedge funds make syndicated loans and take short positions in the equity of borrowing firms. We find evidence consistent with the short-selling of the equity of the hedge fund borrowers prior to public announcements of both loan originations and loan amendments. We also find that hedge funds are more likely to lend to highly leveraged, lower credit quality firms, where access to private information is potentially the most valuable and where trading on such information could lead to enhanced profits. Overall, our results have important implications for the current debate regarding regulating the hedge fund industry.     

Why are some mutual funds closed to new investors?

Fund families typically claim that closing a fund protects the fund's superior performance by preventing it from growing too large to be managed efficiently. Even though funds with better performance and larger size are more likely to be closed, there is no evidence that closing a fund can indeed protect its performance. Instead, fund closing decisions are more likely to be motivated by spillover effects – by closing a star fund, the fund family signals its superior performance and also brings investors' attention and investments to other funds in the family. Some evidence exists to suggest that the closing strategy is effective in generating higher inflows into the rest of the family, at least in the short run.     

Does hedge disclosure influence cost of capital for European banks?

Upon extracting and quantifying relevant hedge information from the narrative section of European banks annual reports, this paper examines the impact of such information on cost of capital [as measured by weighted average cost of capital (WACC), cost of equity (COE) and cost of debt (COD)]. Using a sample of 1885 bank-year observations from 19 countries, we find that textual hedge disclosure leads to a significant reduction in WACC, COE, and COD; thus explains a substantial portion of variation in cost of capital. Further, we find that these results are stronger in countries with high corruption and financial openness. Our results are robust to several controls and model specification. Collectively, our findings enrich prior evidence which examines the economic consequences of hedge disclosure.