The Performance of Hedge Funds: Risk, Return, and Incentives
Pages: 833-874 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00129 | Cited by: 707
Carl Ackermann, Richard McEnally, David Ravenscraft
Hedge funds display several interesting characteristics that may influence performance, including: flexible investment strategies, strong managerial incentives, substantial managerial investment, sophisticated investors, and limited government oversight. Using a large sample of hedge fund data from 1988–1995, we find that hedge funds consistently outperform mutual funds, but not standard market indices. Hedge funds, however, are more volatile than both mutual funds and market indices. Incentive fees explain some of the higher performance, but not the increased total risk. The impact of six data‐conditioning biases is explored. We find evidence that positive and negative survival‐related biases offset each other.
Pages: 875-899 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00130 | Cited by: 689
Judith Chevalier, Glenn Ellison
We examine whether mutual fund performance is related to characteristics of fund managers that may indicate ability, knowledge, or effort. In particular, we study the relationship between performance and the manager's age, the average composite SAT score at the manager's undergraduate institution, and whether the manager has an MBA. Although the raw data suggest striking return differences between managers with different characteristics, most of these can be explained by behavioral differences between managers and by selection biases. After adjusting for these, some performance differences remain. In particular, managers who attended higher‐SAT undergraduate institutions have systematically higher risk‐adjusted excess returns.
Is Money Smart? A Study of Mutual Fund Investors' Fund Selection Ability
Pages: 901-933 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00131 | Cited by: 523
Lu Zheng
A previous study finds evidence to support selection ability among active fund investors for equity funds listed in 1982. Using a large sample of equity funds, I find evidence that funds that receive more money subsequently perform significantly better than those that lose money. This effect is short‐lived and is largely but not completely explained by a strategy of betting on winners. In the aggregate, there is no significant evidence that funds that receive more money subsequently beat the market. However, it is possible to earn positive abnormal returns by using the cash flow information for small funds.
Investment Decisions Depend on Portfolio Disclosures
Pages: 935-952 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00132 | Cited by: 141
David K. Musto
Global Stock Markets in the Twentieth Century
Pages: 953-980 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00133 | Cited by: 325
Philippe Jorion, William N. Goetzmann
Pages: 981-1013 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00134 | Cited by: 722
Stephen R. Foerster, G. Andrew Karolyi
Non‐U.S. firms cross‐listing shares on U.S. exchanges as American Depositary Receipts earn cumulative abnormal returns of 19 percent during the year before listing, and an additional 1.20 percent during the listing week, but incur a loss of 14 percent during the year following listing. We show how these unusual share price changes are robust to changing market risk exposures and are related to an expansion of the shareholder base and to the amount of capital raised at the time of listing. Our tests provide support for the market segmentation hypothesis and Merton's (1987) investor recognition hypothesis.
The Persistence of IPO Mispricing and the Predictive Power of Flipping
Pages: 1015-1044 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00135 | Cited by: 234
Laurie Krigman, Wayne H. Shaw, Kent L. Womack
The Going‐Public Decision and the Development of Financial Markets
Pages: 1045-1082 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00136 | Cited by: 612
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, Sheridan Titman
This paper explores the linkages between stock price efficiency, the choice between private and public financing, and the development of capital markets in emerging economies. Generally, the advantage of public financing is high if costly information is diverse and cheap to acquire, and if investors receive valuable information without cost. The value of public firms generally depends on public market size, which implies that there can be a positive externality associated with going public, so that an inferior equilibrium can exist where too few firms go public. The model is consistent with empirical observations on financial market development.
Pages: 1083-1107 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00137 | Cited by: 86
Tom Arnold, Philip Hersch, J. Harold Mulherin, Jeffry Netter
Evidence on the Determinants of Credit Terms Used in Interfirm Trade
Pages: 1109-1129 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00138 | Cited by: 600
Chee K. Ng, Janet Kiholm Smith, Richard L. Smith
A Reexamination of the Conglomerate Merger Wave in the 1960s: An Internal Capital Markets View
Pages: 1131-1152 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00139 | Cited by: 228
R. Glenn Hubbard, Darius Palia
Ex Ante Bond Returns and the Liquidity Preference Hypothesis
Pages: 1153-1167 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00140 | Cited by: 33
Jacob Boudoukh, Matthew Richardson, Tom Smith, Robert F. Whitelaw
We provide a formal test of the liquidity preference hypothesis (LPH), that is, the monotonicity of ex ante term premiums, using nonparametric estimates that do not require a structural model for conditional expected returns. Although the point estimates of the term premiums are consistent with previous conclusions in the literature regarding violations of the LPH, the test statistics are generally insignificant, even when powerful conditioning information is used. These results illustrate the importance of correctly accounting for correlations across maturities and of formally testing the inequality restrictions implied by the LPH.
Number of Shareholders and Stock Prices: Evidence from Japan
Pages: 1169-1184 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00141 | Cited by: 152
Yakov Amihud, Haim Mendelson, Jun Uno
Pages: 1185-1189 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.t01-1-00142 | Cited by: 0
Pages: 1185-1189 | Published: 6/1999 | DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.00142 | Cited by: 0