Information content when mutual funds deviate from benchmarks

__Abstract__ The consensus wisdom of active mutual fund managers, as reflected in their average over-and underweighting decisions, contains valuable information about future stock returns. Analyzing a comprehensive sample of active U.S. equity funds from 1984 to 2008, we find that stocks heavily overweighted by active funds outperform their underweighted counterparts by more than 7% per year, after adjustments for their loadings on the market, size, value, and momentum factors. This large premium dissipates quickly as the consensus view becomes publicly available. These results are consistent with the notion that informed investing by active mutual funds enhances the informativeness of stock prices. In addition, active mutual funds invest only a small portion of fund assets in high alpha stocks, in accordance with the consensus view that active mutual funds on average fail to outperform passive benchmarks. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1847

Benchmark-adjusted performance of US equity mutual funds and the issue of prospectus benchmarks

This study examines the impact of mismatch between prospectus benchmark and fund objectives on benchmark-adjusted fund performance and ranking in a sample of 1281 US equity mutual funds. All funds in our sample report S&P500 index as a prospectus benchmark, yet 2/3 of those are placed in the Morningstar category with risk and objectives different to those of the S&P500 index. We identify more appropriate ‘category benchmarks’ for those mismatched funds and obtain their benchmark-adjusted alphas using recent Angelidis et al. (J Bank Finance 37(5):1759–1776, 2013) methodology. We find that S&P500-adjusted alphas are higher than ‘category benchmark’-adjusted alphas in 61.2% of the cases. In terms of fund quartile rankings, 30% of winner funds lose that status when the prospectus benchmark is substituted with the one better matching their objectives. In the remaining performance quartiles, there is no clear advantage of using S&P 500 as a benchmark. Hence, the prospectus benchmark can mislead investors about fund’s relative performance and ranking, so any reference to performance in a fund’s prospectus should be treated with caution

Is there a Difference? The Performance Characteristics of SRI Equity Indexes

Investments in socially responsible investments (SRI) are still a small, but growing segment of international capital markets. This study analyses whether a SRI screening process applied to equities results in a different performance outcome compared to relevant conventional benchmark indexes. In contrast to other studies, the analysis concentrates on SRI indexes and not on investment funds. This has several advantages, which include that the transaction costs of funds, the timing activities and the skill of the fund management do not have to be considered. This leads to a relatively direct measure of the performance effects of SRI screens. The 29 SRI stock indexes are analysed by single-factor models with benchmarks that closely approximate the investment universe of the SRI stock indexes and by multi-equation systems that also exploit the information in the cross-section. The results show that SRI stock indexes do not exhibit a different risk-adjusted return than conventional benchmarks. But many SRI indexes have a higher risk relative to the benchmarks. These findings are robust to the use of different sets of benchmark indexes and apply to all common types of SRI screening. --Socially responsible investing,equity indexes,performance,risk

The Price of Ethics: Evidence from Socially Responsible Mutual Funds

This paper estimates the price of ethics by studying the risk-return relation in socially responsible investment (SRI) funds. Consistent with investors paying a price for ethics, SRI funds in many European and Asia-Pacific countries strongly underperform domestic benchmark portfolios by about 5% per annum, although UK and US SRI funds do not significantly underperform their benchmarks. The underperformance of SRI funds does not seem to be driven by the loadings on an ethical risk factor. SRI funds do not suffer a cost of reduced selectivity nor do SRI funds managers time the market. There is mixed evidence of a smart money effect: SRI investors are unable to identify the funds that will outperform in the future, whereas they show some fund-selection ability in identifying ethical funds that will perform poorly. The screening activities of SRI funds have a significant impact on funds’ riskadjusted returns and loadings on risk factors: corporate governance and social screens generate better risk-adjusted returns whereas other screens (e.g. environmental ones) yield significantly lower returns.ethics;mutual funds;socially responsible investing;investment screens;smart money;risk loadings

The Price of Ethics: Evidence from Socially Responsible Mutual Funds

This paper estimates the price of ethics by studying the risk-return relation in socially responsible investment (SRI) funds. Consistent with investors paying a price for ethics, SRI funds in many European and Asia-Pacific countries strongly underperform domestic benchmark portfolios by about 5% per annum, although UK and US SRI funds do not significantly underperform their benchmarks. The underperformance of SRI funds does not seem to be driven by the loadings on an ethical risk factor. SRI funds do not suffer a cost of reduced selectivity nor do SRI funds managers time the market. There is mixed evidence of a smart money effect: SRI investors are unable to identify the funds that will outperform in the future, whereas they show some fund-selection ability in identifying ethical funds that will perform poorly. The screening activities of SRI funds have a significant impact on funds’ riskadjusted returns and loadings on risk factors: corporate governance and social screens generate better risk-adjusted returns whereas other screens (e.g. environmental ones) yield significantly lower returns.ethics;mutual funds;socially responsible investing;investment screens;smart money;risk loadings

The determinants of the flow of funds of managed portfolios: mutual funds versus pension funds

Due to differences in financial sophistication and agency relationships, we posit that investors use different criteria to select portfolio managers in the retail mutual fund and fiduciary pension fund industry segments. We provide evidence on investors’ manager selection criteria by estimating the relation between manager asset flow and performance. We find that pension fund clients use quantitatively sophisticated measures like Jensen’s alpha, tracking error, and outperformance of a market benchmark. Pension clients also punish poorly performing managers by withdrawing assets under management. In contrast, mutual fund investors use raw return performance and flock disproportionately to recent winners but do not withdraw assets from recent losers. Mutual fund manager flow is significantly positively related to Jensen’s alpha, a seemingly anomalous result in light of a relatively unsophisticated mutual fund client base. We provide preliminary evidence, however, that this relation is driven by a high correlation between Jensen’s alpha and widely available summary performance measures, such as Morningstar’s star rating. By documenting differences in the flow-performance relation, we contribute to the growing literature linking fund manager behavior to the implicit incentives to increase assets under management. We show that several forces combine to weaken the incentive for pension fund managers to engage in the type of risk-shifting behavior identified in the mutual fund literature.Mutual funds ; Pensions ; Investments

Is there a Difference? The Performance Characteristics of SRI Equity Indexes

Investments in socially responsible investments (SRI) are still a small, but growing segment of international capital markets. This study analyses whether a SRI screening process applied to equities results in a different performance outcome compared to relevant conventional benchmark indexes. In contrast to other studies, the analysis concentrates on SRI indexes and not on investment funds. This has several advantages, which include that the transaction costs of funds, the timing activities and the skill of the fund management do not have to be considered. This leads to a relatively direct measure of the performance effects of SRI screens. The 29 SRI stock indexes are analysed by single-factor models with benchmarks that closely approximate the investment universe of the SRI stock indexes and by multi-equation systems that also exploit the information in the cross-section. The results show that SRI stock indexes do not exhibit a different risk-adjusted return than conventional benchmarks. But many SRI indexes have a higher risk relative to the benchmarks. These findings are robust to the use of different sets of benchmark indexes and apply to all common types of SRI screening

Understanding Mutual Fund and Hedge Fund Styles Using Return Based Style Analysis

We provide an introduction to the use of return based style analysis of Sharpe (1992) in practice. We demonstrate the importance of selecting the right style benchmarks and how the use of inappropriate style benchmarks may lead to wrong conclusions. When style analysis is applied to sector oriented funds such as healthcare, precious metals, energy, technology, etc., the set of benchmarks should include sector or industry indexes. Following Glosten and Jagannathan (1994), Fung and Hsieh (2001), and Agarwal and Naik (2001), we show how to analyze the investment style of hedge fund managers by including the returns on selected option based strategies as style benchmarks. In the examples we consider, return based style analysis provides insights not available through commonly used 'peer' evaluation alone.

Institutional Homogeneity and Choice in Superannuation

In this analysis of institutional investor performance, two questions are addressed. First, what degree of similarity is observed within the market place for retail superannuation funds? Second, what are the implications of homogenous behaviour for member choice policy? The answers from this study are as follows: as an industry, institutional investors destroyed value for superannuation investors for the period 1991 through 2003, under-performing passive portfolio returns by around 60 basis points per annum. Moreover, we find there is a great deal of clustering around this average underperformance. It also appears as though funds have similar risk characteristics which are, on average, defensive. The findings suggest that the products offered by those competing in this market are very similar in nature, hence limiting the potency of choice policy in Australia.Superannuation, underperformance