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

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 $140 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

A meta analysis of real estate fund performance

This paper provides evidence regarding the risk-adjusted performance of 19 UK real estate funds in the UK, over the period 1991-2001. Using Jensen’s alpha the results are generally favourable towards the hypothesis that real estate fund managers showed superior risk-adjusted performance over this period. However, using three widely known parametric statistical procedures to jointly test for timing and selection ability the results are less conclusive. The paper then utilises the meta-analysis technique to further examine the regression results in an attempt to estimate the proportion of variation in results attributable to sampling error. The meta-analysis results reveal strong evidence, across all models, that the variation in findings is real and may not be attributed to sampling error. Thus, the meta-analysis results provide strong evidence that on average the sample of real estate funds analysed in this study delivered significant risk-adjusted performance over this period. The meta-analysis for the three timing and selection models strongly indicating that this out performance of the benchmark resulted from superior selection ability, while the evidence for the ability of real estate fund managers to time the market is at best weak. Thus, we can say that although real estate fund managers are unable to outperform a passive buy and hold strategy through timing, they are able to improve their risk-adjusted performance through selection ability

The conditional performance of UK property funds

The evaluation of investment fund performance has been one of the main developments of modern portfolio theory. Most studies employ the technique developed by Jensen (1968) that compares a particular fund's returns to a benchmark portfolio of equal risk. However, the standard measures of fund manager performance are known to suffer from a number of problems in practice. In particular previous studies implicitly assume that the risk level of the portfolio is stationary through the evaluation period. That is unconditional measures of performance do not account for the fact that risk and expected returns may vary with the state of the economy. Therefore many of the problems encountered in previous performance studies reflect the inability of traditional measures to handle the dynamic behaviour of returns. As a consequence Ferson and Schadt (1996) suggest an approach to performance evaluation called conditional performance evaluation which is designed to address this problem. This paper utilises such a conditional measure of performance on a sample of 27 UK property funds, over the period 1987-1998. The results of which suggest that once the time varying nature of the funds beta is corrected for, by the addition of the market indicators, the average fund performance show an improvement over that of the traditional methods of analysis

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

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

Real estate portfolio construction and estimation risk

The use of MPT in the construction real estate portfolios has two serious limitations when used in an ex-ante framework: (1) the intertemporal instability of the portfolio weights and (2) the sharp deterioration in performance of the optimal portfolios outside the sample period used to estimate asset mean returns. Both problems can be traced to wide fluctuations in sample means Jorion (1985). Thus the use of a procedure that ignores the estimation risk due to the uncertain in mean returns is likely to produce sub-optimal results in subsequent periods. This suggests that the consideration of the issue of estimation risk is crucial in the use of MPT in developing a successful real estate portfolio strategy. Therefore, following Eun & Resnick (1988), this study extends previous ex-ante based studies by evaluating optimal portfolio allocations in subsequent test periods by using methods that have been proposed to reduce the effect of measurement error on optimal portfolio allocations

Risk reduction and real estate portfolio size

Despite a number of papers that discuss the advantages of increased size on risk levels in real estate portfolios there is remarkably little empirical evidence based on actual portfolios. The objective of this paper is to remedy this deficiency by examining the portfolio risk of a large sample of actual property data over the period 1981 to 1996. The results show that all that can be said is that portfolios of properties of a large size, on the average, tend to have lower risks than small sized portfolios. More importantly portfolios of a few properties can have very high or very low risk

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

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

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