Bakgrund: Under det senaste decenniet har fondsparandet ökat och i samband med detta har konkurrensen mellan fonderna också ökat. Aktivt förvaltade fonder har länge kritiserat för att de inte lyckas konkurrera med passiva fonder. En av anledningarna bakom detta är de höga avgifterna som aktiva fonder tar. Tidigare studier har kunnat etablera att fondens prestation och avgift kan förklaras utifrån givna karaktärsdrag. Syfte: Syftet är att kolla huruvida fondens avgift är rättfärdigad ur ett prestationsperspektiv samt även undersöka vilka karaktärsdrag hos en fond som förklarar avgift och prestation. Vidare syftar även denna studie att jämföra resultatet mellan den svenska och den amerikanska marknaden under tidsperioden 2015–2019. Metod: Det görs tre urval där ett urval inkluderarar endast amerikanska banker, ett stratiferat urval för hela den amerikanska marknaden samt ett urval som innefattar hela den svenska marknaden.Detta resultera i att 112 bankförvaltade amerikanska fonder, 225 amerikanska fonder och 52 svenska fonder analyseras. Paneldataregressioner görs för att etablera vilken påverkan de olika karaktärsdragen har på riskjusterad avkastning samt fondavgiften. Karaktärsdragen som undersöks är ålder, fondförmögenhet, aktiv risk och om fonden är bankförvaltad eller inte. Famas och Frenchs3-faktor- och Carharts 4-faktormodell används som bas för att avgöra huruvida fonderna generera en överavkastning. Slutsats: Resultatet indikerar att i Sverige är en högre fondavgift rättfärdigad då investerare kompenseras med en högre riskjusterad avkastning, medan i USA påvisas motsatsen. Det amerikanska stratifierade urvalet förklaras bättre av karaktärsdragen än det svenska urvalet.Gällande om förvaltaren är en bank visar det sig att dessa fonder presterar sämre överlag, både i USA och i Sverige. Sammanställt gick den svenska marknaden emot befintlig forskning i större utsträckning än den amerikanska. / Background: During the last decade fund savings have increased and the competition between the funds have heightened. A long-standing criticism against actively managed funds has been their ineptness of competing with passively managed funds. High fund fees are one of the reasons why this is the case. Fund fees are therefore not only explained by fund performance. Previous studies have concluded that fees and performance can be explained from a fund’s character traits. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to establish if fund fees are justified from a performance standpoint and if the character traits can explain funds fees and performance. The results will then be compared between Sweden and the United States during the time period 2015-2019. Method: Three selections are done, where the first selection is a stratified selection of the American fund market. The second one is a collection of American banks and the third includes the Swedish market. This resulted in 225 American funds, 112 bank managed American funds and 52 Swedish funds. Panel data regressions are performed to establish the relationship between character traits, fund fees and fund return. The character traits that are analysed are age, size, tracking error, and if the fund is bankmanaged. Fama and French’s 3 factor model and Carharts 4-factor model are used as a base for determining if the funds are able to generate excess return. Conclusion: The results indicate that a higher fund fee is justified on the Swedish market as the investor is compensated for the higher cost. The relationship is reversed for the American market where the lower fee funds performance is superior. The character traits have a stronger affiliation with American fund fees and returns compared to the Swedish market. The bank owned funds performed worse overall in both countries. In summary, the results from the American market were more aligned with previous research in contrast to the Swedish market

This study examines the relationship between the performances of US equity REITs and the market risk premium, SMB, HML, MOM as well as an industry index and a real estate index. The statistical significance of the abnormal returns and the beta coefficients of independent variables are examined. The REITs are categorized in seven groups according to their investment areas and the analysis results are compared. Daily return indexes of US equity REITs are collected for the period between 2005 and 2011. These data are then used to estimate the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) of Sharpe (1964) and Lintner (1965), the Fama and French&rsquo / s 3-Factor Model (1993) and Carhart&rsquo / s 4-Factor Model (1995). These models are re-estimated by adding an industry and a real estate index. The empirical results show that these added independent variables improve the available models. Additionally, no abnormal return is detected for REITs and their returns have a positive correlation with the SMB and HML factors and a negative correlation with the MOM factor. Therefore,, the REITs are relatively small and have high book-to-market ratios. The negative MOM coefficients indicate that the losers will win and the winners will lose.

Does the 4-factor model have a higher degree of explanation than CAPM and the 3-factor model on the Swedish stock market? The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether the 4-factor model's ability to explain the systematic risk on the Swedish stock market is better than CAPM and the 3-factor model. Furthermore, we want to investigate whether it is possible to create portfolios based on the 4-factor model that generates excess returns. In addition, we will also compare our results with the results of previous international studies to see what results we get in the Swedish market.