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.     

The Only Fund in Town? Geographic Segmentation in the US Mutual Fund Industry

We find that mutual funds located in regions with more competing funds charge lower management fees, but higher fees related to sales and distribution (12b‐1 fees), sales loads, and other nonmanagement fee expenses. There is some evidence that funds in more competitive regions have higher total expense ratios than similar funds in less competitive regions. Our results indicate that while increased competition drives down fund profits, it creates a negative externality by way of increased sales expenses. Overall, our results suggest the mutual fund industry is characterized by monopolistic competition determined at the local level.     

Investor Response to Mutual Fund Policy Variables

The effects of investment performance and macro-economic influences on money flow to individual mutual funds previously have been investigated and found to provide little explanatory power. In this article we investigate an additional category of factors that may logically be thought to affect the flow of money to funds, namely, the fund policy factors over which managers have some degree of control. These are: load/no-load status, sales commission structures, minimum dollar investment levels, and expenses. We establish associations between these factors and new money flows. Several significant relationships are found. Overall, however, the policy variables we investigated explain little of the variability in new money flows. A competitive equilibrium appears to exist such that no single fund attracts new money at disproportionately high rates through its policies. Our results, like those obtained for performance and macro-economic variables, highlight the inability of mutual fund research to date to explain adequately the flow of new money to individual funds.     

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.     

Security Concentration and Active Fund Management: Do Focused Funds Offer Superior Performance?

We examine gross fund returns based on the number of securities held and find no evidence that focused funds outperform diversified funds. After deducting expenses, focused funds significantly underperform. Controlling for various fund characteristics, fund performance is positively related to the fund's number of holdings both before and after expenses. We find evidence linking focused fund underperformance to agency and liquidity problems. Finally, the attrition rate of focused funds is higher than that of diversified funds. These results do not support the view that managers holding focused portfolios have superior stock‐picking skills or that focused funds provide value to investors.     

Gains to Mutual Fund Sponsors Offering Multiple Share Class Funds

Although the number of mutual funds grew during the 1990s, much of the growth is attributable to the introduction of multiple share class (MS) funds. Proponents argue that the MS structure leads to cost savings, which can be passed onto investors as lower expenses. However, if the structure lowers costs, sponsors are likely to profit from it. Though investors are concerned about the base expense ratio, the sum of administrative and management fees, fund sponsors generate profits from the management fees. As such, they would prefer to increase the management fee if they can simultaneously lower administrative fees. Our results indicate that MS fund investors pay lower administrative fees, but management fees are approximately 7 basis points higher than single-class funds. Overall, base expense ratios are higher than for single-class funds, suggesting fund sponsors capture the cost benefits the MS structure provides. Our results are robust to different model specifications and different estimation techniques.     

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.     

Performance Chasing,Fund Flows and Fund Size in Real Estate Mutual Funds

Real estate mutual funds have grown dramatically in number, size, scope and assets under management over the last 15 years, but little assessment is evident. The present study addresses this limitation. Better prior period performance is associated with greater shares of fund inflows for a period. Returns, however, are negatively associated with increased fund flows and fund size. Investors chase past performance limiting fund managers’ ability to optimize investments. Under normal market conditions, but departing from typical mutual fund performance, real estate mutual fund returns generally exceed relevant benchmarks on a before expenses basis and match benchmark returns after expenses. The ability to meet and exceed benchmark returns, however, does not hold during the financial crisis period. Overall, more established funds are shown to have higher returns while fund turnover is not a determinant of returns.     

Bank affiliation and discounts on closed-end funds

This study investigates whether investors value the bank affiliation of closed-end funds and analyzes whether investors treat funds differently because of their affiliated bank type, commercial or investment, and the size of their affiliated commercial bank, small or big. The analysis of the discounts on closed-end funds traded on Borsa Istanbul reveals that bank-affiliated funds trade at a lower discount than other funds, controlling for fund characteristics and market conditions. It is found that investors are willing to pay a higher price on funds affiliated with commercial banks, especially big ones, than bank-unaffiliated funds. However, discounts on all bank-affiliated funds increased more than discounts on unaffiliated funds during the banking crisis of 2000–2001 in Turkey suggesting that investors are willing to pay a trust premium to invest in funds that are affiliated with banks regardless of their type or size.     

Agency costs,governance, and organizational forms: Evidence from the mutual fund industry

Using a comprehensive sample of mutual funds and fund families for the period 1992–2004, this study examines the impact of fund management companies’ organizational forms on the level of agency costs within mutual funds. We find that, all else being equal: (1) funds managed by public fund families charge higher fees than those managed by private fund families; (2) public fund families acquire more funds than private fund families; and (3) funds of public fund families significantly underperform funds of private fund families. Collectively, these findings suggest that agency costs are higher in mutual funds managed by public fund families. Our results are consistent with the idea that the agency conflict between the fund management company and fund shareholders is more acute for public management companies because of their shorter-term focus.     

The Performance of European Index Funds and Exchange‐Traded Funds

European index funds and exchange‐traded funds underperform their benchmarks by 50 to 150 basis points per annum. The explanatory power of dividend withholding taxes as a determinant of this underperformance is at least on par with fund expenses. Dividend taxes also explain performance differences between funds that track different benchmarks and time variation in fund performance. Our results imply that not only fund expenses, but also dividend taxes can result in a substantial drag on mutual fund performance.     

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.     

Closing and cloning in open-end mutual funds

Using a unique dataset, we document that only those closed funds for which no new fund is subsequently launched continuously deliver positive abnormal returns. This suggests the existence of an optimal fund scale. In spite of the potential diseconomies of scale, a non-trivial proportion of closed funds have new funds cloned—the scale motive would not be a complete explanation for the closure. When managers of closed funds clone new funds, they receive greater public attention and thus can attract more fund flows and charge higher fees. Furthermore, better-performing closed fund managers attract more fund flows to their new siblings, making the closure an effective mechanism to extract economic rents. Overall, we find that closing and cloning is an attractive strategy for funds seeking to increase their management fees and funds with more managers in place. Aspects of the closed fund family also affect the launch decision of new siblings.     

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.     

The impact of the Arab Spring and the Ebola outbreak on African equity mutual fund investor decisions

Financial development and stock markets have been widely considered to be key factors in economic growth. Among institutional investors, mutual funds play a key role in providing financial resources to stock markets, particularly in developing countries. Different from other investments, mutual fund flows could be affected by retail investors’ behavior and their overreaction to specific events. We considered 78 equity mutual funds that are geographically specialized in African countries and observed monthly flows and performance for the period of 2006–2015. We find that two major events, Ebola and the Arab Spring, significantly affected the fund flows, controlling for fund performance, expenses and market returns. Retail investors over-reacted to these major events, withdrawing their savings from the African mutual funds. This result is particularly strong when connected to the media coverage of these events: the higher the number of articles about Arab Spring and Ebola, the higher the withdrawals. These irrational investors’ behavior damaged the funds’ managers market timing ability, and reduced the equity capital injection into African stock markets. Our results have several implications for both holders of frontier market mutual funds and the overall asset management industry.     

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.     

Exploring the transitional behavior among value and growth stocks

Unlike the corporate funds in the US, mutual funds in many countries such as China and Germany operate under a different governance arrangement and are thus called “contractual funds.” The governance structure of contractual funds allows shareholders of fund management companies, rather than the fund investors, to be responsible for asset management decisions. Therefore, a fund’s governance attributes may be especially important in driving its performance. Using a comprehensive governance data covering Chinese mutual funds, this paper finds that the governance and organizational structures of Chinese fund management companies significantly influence the performance of their affiliated funds. In particular, while a larger stake from the top1 shareholder significantly improves the performance of affiliated funds, the presence of multiple largest shareholders reduces their performance. Moreover, fund management companies that offer fewer fund products and charge higher management fees tend to perform better. Finally, more institutional holding in a fund appears to function as an external supervisory surrogate for internal board governance to help improve fund performance.     

Picking funds with confidence

We present a new approach to selecting actively managed mutual funds that uses both portfolio holdings and fund return information to eliminate funds with predicted inferior performance through a sequence of pairwise fund comparisons. Our methodology determines both the number of skilled funds and their identities, and locates funds with substantially higher risk-adjusted returns than those identified by conventional alpha-ranking methods. We find strong evidence of time-series variation in both the number of funds identified as superior using our approach, as well as in their performance across different economic states.     

Strategic behavior within families of hedge funds

The paper investigates the strategic behavior of hedge fund families. It focuses on decisions to start and liquidate family-member funds. Hedge fund families tend to liquidate funds that underperform compared to other member funds, and to replace them by new ones. By choosing a launch time after a short period of superior performance by their member funds, families extend the spillover to new funds. Hedge fund families seem to be more experienced in promoting their funds and attracting fund inflow than in generating superior performance. This results in higher dollar compensation earned by managers within multi-fund families than in stand-alone funds.     

Size and investment performance: a research note

This article examines the performance of actively managed Australian equity funds and the extent to which both fund size and manager size are related to risk-adjusted returns. Larger investment managers, by definition, engage in higher trade volume. The literature documents that transaction costs and trade difficulty increase with trade size, given difficulties associated with 'large' trades and their potential market impact on security prices. Therefore, ceteris paribus , large orders are consistent with lower levels of efficiency in trade execution and higher transaction costs. While larger investment managers may experience material disadvantages relative to their smaller counterparts, the Australian literature to date has largely ignored the issues of asset size and the long run performance of investment offerings. This article, employing returns and fund size data that control for survivorship bias, documents that while large retail active equity funds earn higher risk-adjusted returns (after expenses) than small funds, the difference in mean performance is not significantly different. In the institutional sphere, the study also finds no statistically significant performance differences (net of expenses) between funds on the basis of portfolio size. These findings suggest the hypothesis that performance declines with fund size is not supported empirically.