Does Transparency Really Matter for Mutual Fund Conversions?
Justin Kuepper
|
Let's take a closer look at whether transparency really matters for portfolio managers...
The authors’ study covered the performance of global funds during the period from 2001 to 2008. The following is a summary of their findings:
The bottom line is that management companies treat their own funds more favorably than those they manage on behalf of other fund families. In-house funds outperform outsourced funds on both a raw and risk-adjusted basis.
Prior research has documented that investors tend to pick a fund family first. Only then do they choose the funds (from among that family’s menu) in which they will invest. Given that behavior, mutual fund families often offer more product differentiation, despite the negative outcomes for investors.
In addition, they indirectly provide further evidence that active management is a loser’s game (outsourcing only makes it more so). One would think that if anyone had the skills and resources to identify the few future active managers that will beat their benchmarks, it would be other active managers. The evidence from this research shows how poorly they do at that task.
Receive email updates about best performers, news, CE accredited webcasts and more.
Justin Kuepper
|
Let's take a closer look at whether transparency really matters for portfolio managers...
Kristan Wojnar, RCC™
|
We are looking at all things marketing in this week’s edition.
Justin Kuepper
|
This article will look at how the rise of muni bond funds could...
Mutual Fund Education
Justin Kuepper
|
Let's take a closer look at how ESG investments have outperformed during the...
Mutual Fund Education
Daniel Cross
|
While CITs and mutual funds share many similarities, there are some key differences...
Mutual Fund Education
Sam Bourgi
|
The phrase ‘bear market’ has been thrown around a lot lately, but it...
The authors’ study covered the performance of global funds during the period from 2001 to 2008. The following is a summary of their findings:
The bottom line is that management companies treat their own funds more favorably than those they manage on behalf of other fund families. In-house funds outperform outsourced funds on both a raw and risk-adjusted basis.
Prior research has documented that investors tend to pick a fund family first. Only then do they choose the funds (from among that family’s menu) in which they will invest. Given that behavior, mutual fund families often offer more product differentiation, despite the negative outcomes for investors.
In addition, they indirectly provide further evidence that active management is a loser’s game (outsourcing only makes it more so). One would think that if anyone had the skills and resources to identify the few future active managers that will beat their benchmarks, it would be other active managers. The evidence from this research shows how poorly they do at that task.
Receive email updates about best performers, news, CE accredited webcasts and more.
Justin Kuepper
|
Let's take a closer look at whether transparency really matters for portfolio managers...
Kristan Wojnar, RCC™
|
We are looking at all things marketing in this week’s edition.
Justin Kuepper
|
This article will look at how the rise of muni bond funds could...
Mutual Fund Education
Justin Kuepper
|
Let's take a closer look at how ESG investments have outperformed during the...
Mutual Fund Education
Daniel Cross
|
While CITs and mutual funds share many similarities, there are some key differences...
Mutual Fund Education
Sam Bourgi
|
The phrase ‘bear market’ has been thrown around a lot lately, but it...