94,209 research outputs found

    Efficiency of the Mutual Fund Industry: an Examination of U.S. Domestic Equity Funds: 1995-2004

    Full text link
    Investors have the ability to choose between two different management styles in the mutual fund industry. These two management styles differ in both the investment strategy type the fund executes and management costs, which are charged to the funds’ investors. First, investors may invest their funds in index funds, which employ a passive investment strategy. Here, investors expect to earn a rate of return equivalent to the market index—minus a small management fee—which the fund seeks to track. Alternatively, investors may choose active fund management. The returns of these mutual funds rely on stock selection ability of portfolio managers. Active portfolio managers perform securities research and obtain information in an attempt to distinguish between undervalued and overvalued securities—allowing them to outperform the market. To compensate for the cost of this research, these funds generally charge a higher management fee which is paid by individual mutual fund investors. In 2004, the average actively managed fund expense ratio was approximately 140 basis points, while the majority of index funds charge fees ranging from 10 basis points to 50 basis points. A expense ratio of 140 basis points would mean that 140ofevery140 of every 10,000 invested by an individual in a fund will go to the portfolio manager in order to compensate them for their research and management. Some funds carry further expenses in the form of load charges. They take a percentage of an investors initial investment as a sales commission, as these funds are distributed directly by the fund management company. Much debate within the investment community has revolved around the question of whether the fees charged by actively managed mutual funds are justified with higher returns. [excerpt

    Constructing the true art market index : a novel 2-step hedonic approach and its application to the german art market

    Get PDF
    This study develops a novel 2-step hedonic approach, which is used to construct a price index for German paintings. This approach enables the researcher to use every single auction record, instead of only those auction records that belong to a sub-sample of selected artists. This results in a substantially larger sample available for research and it lowers the selection bias that is inherent in the traditional hedonic and repeat sales methodologies. Using a unique sample of 61,135 auction records for German artworks created by 5,115 different artists over the period 1985 to 2007, we find that the geometric annual return on German art is just 3.8 percent, with a standard deviation of 17.87 percent. Although our results indicate that art underperforms the market portfolio and is not proportionally rewarded for downside risk, under some circumstances art should be included in an optimal portfolio for diversification purposes

    How much foreign stocks? : Bayesian approaches to asset allocation can explain the home bias of US investors

    Get PDF
    US investors hold much less foreign stocks than mean/variance analysis applied to historical data predicts. In this article, we investigate whether this home bias can be explained by Bayesian approaches to international asset allocation. In contrast to mean/variance analysis, Bayesian approaches employ different techniques for obtaining the set of expected returns. They shrink sample means towards a reference point that is inferred from economic theory. We also show that one of the Bayesian approaches leads to the same implications for asset allocation as mean-variance/tracking error criterion. In both cases, the optimal portfolio is a combination the market portfolio and the mean/variance efficient portfolio with the highest Sharpe ratio. Applying the Bayesian approaches to the subject of international diversification, we find that substantial home bias can be explained when a US investor has a strong belief in the global mean/variance efficiency of the US market portfolio and when he has a high regret aversion falling behind the US market portfolio. We also find that the current level of home bias can justified whenever regret aversion is significantly higher than risk aversion. Finally, we compare the Bayesian approaches to mean/variance analysis in an empirical out-ofsample study. The Bayesian approaches prove to be superior to mean/variance optimized portfolios in terms of higher risk-adjusted performance and lower turnover. However, they not systematically outperform the US market portfolio or the minimum-variance portfolio

    The opportunity cost of negative screening in socially responsible investing

    Get PDF
    This paper investigates the impact of negative screening on the investment universe as well as on financial performance. We come up with a novel identification process and as such depart from mainstream socially responsible investing literature by concentrating on individual firms’ conduct and by studying a much wider range of issues. Firstly, we study the size and financial performance of fourteen potentially controversial issues: abortion, adult entertainment, alcohol, animal testing, contraceptives, controversial weapons, fur, gambling, genetic engineering, meat, nuclear power, pork, (embryonic) stem cells, and tobacco. We investigate an international sample of more than 1,600 stocks for more than twenty years. We then analyze the impact of applying negative screens to a market portfolio. Our findings suggest that the choice for negative screening strategies does matter for the size of the investment universe as well as for risk-adjusted return performance. Investing in controversial stocks in many cases results in additional risk-adjusted returns, whereas excluding them may reduce financial performance. These findings suggest that there are opportunity costs to negative screening.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe
    corecore