DETERMINANTS OF PERSISTENCE IN RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF MUTUAL FUNDS

Similar to previous studies, we investigate the relation between past and future fund performance. However, we deviate from previous studies by investigating the relation between persistent fund performance and four systematic factors: size, goal, load, and management fee. Results indicate no consistent relation between fund size and persistent fund performance. The existence of a sales charge does not affect persistent fund performance. The goal of a fund does affect persistent fund performance, with high-risk maximum capital gain funds' demonstrating a strong positive persistence in abnormal returns. In addition, funds with low management fees demonstrate significantly positive persistent fund performance, while funds with high management fees demonstrate significantly negative persistent fund performance. Further research into the relation between persistent fund performance and maximum capital gain funds indicates persistent fund performance in both inferior- and superior-performing funds. However, persistence in funds with low management fees occurs only in funds with superior past performance.     

The Style Consistency of Hedge Funds

This study examines the style classification and the style consistency of hedge funds using a new proprietary database over the period May 1989 to April 1999. First, a hard clustering procedure is applied to classify hedge funds into homogeneous groups. It is shown that the methodology is robust and can be used to build stable hedge funds indexes. The method performs equally well as the principal component analysis in explaining in‐ and out‐of‐sample cross‐sectional hedge funds' returns. Second, we extend hard to fuzzy cluster memberships, relaxing the full assignment of the funds to individual clusters. We apply the fuzzy clustering methodology to estimate hedge funds' probabilistic exposure to various styles. We introduce three consistency indicators to quantify the hedge fund managers' style opportunism levels. We finally document that there is no evidence that style consistency leads to superior hedge funds' performance.     

A unique view of hedge fund derivatives usage: Safeguard or speculation?

We study the common equity and equity option positions of hedge fund investment advisors over the 1999–2006 period. We find that hedge funds' stock positions predict future returns and that option positions predict both volatility and returns on the underlying stock. A quarterly tracking portfolio of stocks based on publicly observable hedge fund option holdings earns abnormal returns of 1.55% through the end of the quarter. Net of fees, hedge funds using options deliver higher benchmark-adjusted portfolio returns and lower risk than nonusers. The results suggest that hedge fund positions reflect significant timing and selectivity skill.     

Exploring the relationship between cryptocurrencies and hedge funds during COVID-19 crisis

In this paper, we investigated the relationship between cryptocurrency market and hedge funds in two different ways. First, we focus on the dependence between Cryptocurrency hedge funds and conventional hedge funds strategies using VAR and VECM models, while analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on the hedge funds' values. Secondly, we choose between ARDL and ARDL-ECM models to study the effects of cryptocurrency price changes on Crypto- Currency hedge funds' values during COVID-19 crisis. Our empirical findings demonstrate that there is substantial interactions between Crypto-Currency and conventional hedge funds. The COVID-19 pandemic has significant negative impact on the performance of the following hedge funds: Event Driven, Relative Value and Distressed Debt fund strategies, this has reflected in a significant drop in their values during this critical period. However, we demonstrate that COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the relationship between crypto-currency hedge funds and both bitcoin and Ethereum. These findings hold profound implications for hedge funds managers, cryptocurrency market main players and policy makers. Our study is crucial in forecasting the performance of these markets especially during global pandemics.     

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.     

Dissecting hedge funds' strategies

This paper dissects the dynamics of the hedge fund industry with four financial markets, including the equity market, commodities, currencies, and debt market by employing a large number of assets from these markets. We employ four main representative hedge fund strategy indices, and a cap-weighted global index to estimate an asymmetric dynamic conditional correlation (ADCC) GJR-GARCH model using daily data from April 2003 to May 2021. We break down the performance, riskiness, investing style, volatility, dynamic correlations, and shock transmissions of each hedge fund strategy thoroughly. Further, the impact of commodity futures basis on hedge funds' return is analyzed. Comparing the dynamic correlations during the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC) with COVID-19 pandemic reveals changing patterns in hedge funds' investing styles. There are strong and pervasive shock spillovers from hedge fund industry to other financial markets, especially to futures commodities. An increase in the futures basis of several commodities drives up hedge funds' performance. While hedge fund industry underperforms compared to equity market and commodities, the risk-reward measures show that hedge funds are superior to other markets, and safer than the bond market.     

Hedge fund performance attribution under various market conditions

We investigate US hedge funds' performance. Our proposed model contains exogenous and endogenous break points, based on business cycles and on a regime switching process conditional on different states of the market. During difficult market conditions most hedge fund strategies do not provide significant alphas. At such times hedge funds reduce both the number of their exposures to different asset classes and their portfolio allocations, while some strategies even reverse their exposures. Directional strategies share more common exposures under all market conditions compared to non-directional strategies. Factors related to commodity asset classes are more common during these difficult conditions whereas factors related to equity asset classes are most common during good market conditions. Falling stock markets are harsher than recessions for hedge funds.     

The Performance of Hedge Funds: Risk, Return, and Incentives

Hedge funds display several interesting characteristics that may influence performance, including: flexible investment strategies, strong managerial incentives, substantial managerial investment, sophisticated investors, and limited government oversight. Using a large sample of hedge fund data from 1988–1995, we find that hedge funds consistently outperform mutual funds, but not standard market indices. Hedge funds, however, are more volatile than both mutual funds and market indices. Incentive fees explain some of the higher performance, but not the increased total risk. The impact of six data-conditioning biases is explored. We find evidence that positive and negative survival-related biases offset each other.     

The Italian hedge funds industry: An empirical analysis of performance and persistence

This study analyses Italian hedge funds performance and persistence. The peculiarity of the Italian hedge fund industry is that 95% of the hedge funds are funds of hedge funds (FoHF), whereas only 5% of them employ other investment styles. Using monthly data on FoHF provided by MondoHedge, we examine the impact of both market variables and funds’ own characteristics on funds performance using panel data. We find that the European, the Japanese and the emerging markets equity markets, and the commodity market have a positive impact on Italian FoHF performances, while the US Bond Market negatively affects them. Moreover, we find performance fees and notice days to have a negative impact on funds performances. Finally, we test the presence of performance persistence. Employing two different nonparametric methods, we find that funds performances are persistent on a monthly and quarterly basis, while the regression-based parametric method provides evidence of persistence only on a monthly basis.     

Recent advances in explaining hedge fund returns: Implicit factors and exposures

We survey articles covering how hedge fund returns are explained, using largely non-linear multifactor models that examine the non-linear pay-offs and exposures of hedge funds. We provide an integrated view of the implicit factor and statistical factor models that are largely able to explain the hedge fund return-generating process. We present their evolution through time by discussing pioneering studies that made a significant contribution to knowledge, and also recent innovative studies that examine hedge fund exposures using advanced econometric methods. This is the first review that analyzes very recent studies that explain a large part of hedge fund variation. We conclude by presenting some gaps for future research.     

On the High‐Frequency Dynamics of Hedge Fund Risk Exposures

We propose a new method to model hedge fund risk exposures using relatively high‐frequency conditioning variables. In a large sample of funds, we find substantial evidence that hedge fund risk exposures vary across and within months, and that capturing within‐month variation is more important for hedge funds than for mutual funds. We consider different within‐month functional forms, and uncover patterns such as day‐of‐the‐month variation in risk exposures. We also find that changes in portfolio allocations, rather than in the risk exposures of the underlying assets, are the main drivers of hedge funds' risk exposure variation.     

Can investors benefit from the performance of alternative UCITS funds?

We study the performance persistence of alternative UCITS funds, which are a hybrid between mutual funds and hedge funds. Persistence is gauged by alternative measures of performance and risk. Based on contingency tables, we find that performance persists for up to 2 years following ranking. However, persistence is stronger in the short run, and ranked portfolio tests indicate that investors can benefit from persistence for only up to 1 year. The evidence for persistence in risk is ambiguous. We link fund characteristics to performance persistence and find that offshore hedge fund experience enhances persistence. Our results are robust against survivorship bias and other potential database biases.     

Does Hedge Fund Performance Persist? Overview and New Empirical Evidence

The contribution of this paper is to provide an overview and new empirical evidence on hedge fund performance persistence, which has been a controversial issue in the academic literature during the last several years. In the first step, we review recent studies and put them into a joint evaluation of hedge fund performance persistence. In the second step, the methodological framework developed in the overview is used to present new empirical evidence. We find different levels of performance persistence depending on the statistical methodology and the hedge fund strategy employed. In our study, performance persistence cannot be explained by the use of option-like strategies, but it can be partially explained by survivorship and backfilling bias. Differences among hedge fund strategies might be explained by return smoothing. Finally, we develop a rationale for choosing between different methodologies to measure performance persistence and conclude that the multi-period Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is the most useful for evaluating performance persistence of hedge funds.     

Liquidity shocks,size and the relative performance of hedge fund strategies

We examine whether the increase in the flow of capital to hedge funds over the period 1994–2005 had a negative impact on performance. More specifically, we study the relative performance of small versus large funds for each of the hedge fund strategies. Our results indicate that on an absolute return basis, small funds outperform large funds. On a risk-adjusted return basis, however, we find that large funds outperform small funds, and that large funds are also shown to hold less liquid assets and take on less systematic and idiosyncratic risk than small funds. Further, funds that experience positive liquidity shocks generally outperform those that experience negative liquidity shocks. We also find evidence that hedge fund managers that are aggressive in dealing with liquidity shocks perform better than hedge fund managers that are conservative in dealing with liquidity shocks.     

Performance and persistence in money market fund returns

We study the factors affecting the cross section of net returns of money market mutual funds from 1990 through 1994, and the persistence of relative returns across years. We find that the expense ratio is the most important factor in explaining differences in net returns. Government-only funds produce slightly lower returns than other-taxable funds, and economies of scale are evident only for the smaller funds. Money funds' relative returns show strong persistence. Most funds maintain stable expense ratios, so low-cost funds produce consistently high relative returns.     

Do mutual funds have information advantage? Evidence from seasoned equity offerings in China

By integrating the literature on institutional investors with that on seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), this paper investigates the role played by mutual funds around SEO announcements in China. To the extent that shareholdings already held by mutual funds in a firm prior to the firm's SEO issuance represent funds' information advantage, our first finding suggests a positive association between such information advantage and funds' decision to participate in certain SEOs. Second, we find that certain SEO firms that have attracted fund participation at issuance outperform peer firms without fund involvement when performance is proxied for by accounting-based measures. Collectively, our findings are consistent with the notion that mutual funds have an information advantage over other types of investors, and such an advantage would allow them to be able to invest in the “right” SEOs.     

The performance of hedge funds and mutual funds in emerging markets

Use of short selling and derivatives is limited in most emerging markets because such instruments are not as readily available as they are in developed capital markets. These limitations raise questions about the value added provided by hedge funds, especially compared to traditional mutual funds active in these markets. We use five existing performance measurement models plus a new asset-style factor model to identify the return sources and the alpha generated by both types of funds. We analyze subperiods, different market environments, and structural breaks. Our results indicate that some hedge funds generate significant positive alpha, whereas most mutual funds do not outperform traditional benchmarks. We find that hedge funds are more active in shifting their asset allocation. The higher degree of freedom that hedge funds enjoy in their investment style might thus be one explanation for the differences in performance.     

Cautious Risk Takers: Investor Preferences and Demand for Active Management

Despite their mediocre mean performance, actively managed mutual funds are distinct from passive funds in their return distributions. Active value funds better hedge downside risk, while active growth funds better capture upside potential. Since such performance features may appeal to investors with tail‐overweighting preferences, we show that preferences for downside protection and upside potential estimated from the empirical pricing kernel can help explain active fund flows in the value and growth categories, respectively. This effect of investor risk preferences varies significantly with funds' downside‐hedging and upside‐capturing ability, with levels of active management, and across retirement and retail funds.     

Activist hedge funds and firm disclosure

This study examines whether firms' disclosure decisions are affected by the presence of activist hedge funds. Using a large sample of firms that experienced increases in ownership by activist hedge funds, we find that firms are more likely to cease providing financial guidance or reduce the information in the guidance in the quarter subsequent to new investment by activist hedge funds. These results hold even for firms that experienced good quarters and consistently provided guidance in previous quarters. Since guidance has been shown to be beneficial to capital market participants in many ways, reduced guidance has meaningful market implications. Our findings highlight a negative and possible unintended consequence of activist hedge funds' investment in firms, which provides some counterbalance to the numerous positive consequences documented in the prior literature on hedge fund activism.     

Should Asset Managers Hedge Their “Fees at Risk”?

Although the recent financial crisis afflicted all asset managers, the problem of general market exposure was in some respects worse for the long-only funds that rely almost completely on asset-based fees than for the “absolute return” and other kinds of hedge funds that also receive performance-based fees. While the revenue generated by performance-based fees is expected to be volatile, asset-based fees tend to be viewed as an “annuity” stream that involves little or no earnings risk. But, especially in the case of long-only funds, large shortfalls in asset fees were caused by the combination of significant redemptions and sharp reductions in assets under management that accompanied the plunge in asset prices. In this article, the author attempts to quantify the expected effect of market fluctuations on the asset fees and profitability of long-only asset managers. Having done so, he then argues that traditional long-only asset managers—managers whose only reason for being is their ability to generate above-market returns (or “alpha”) on a fairly consistent basis—routinely retain too much beta risk in their primarily asset-based fee structures. The author offers two main reasons for long-only asset managers to hedge beta risk: (1) it would reduce the need for fund management firms to hold liquid capital to ensure solvency and fund important projects during market downturns; (2) it would provide the firm's current and prospective clients with a clearer signal of whether its managers are succeeding in the firm's mission of generating alpha, as well as the possibility of more equity-like and cost-effective incentive compensation systems for those managers.