Actively-managed funds have recently come under fire as it has been determined that they consistently underperform passive funds. Benchmarking, and the constraints placed on actively-managed funds, are standard practices within the industry, but research suggests that these constraints negatively affect fund performance. This research paper explores the effectiveness of actively-managed funds in relation to their benchmark indices, in terms of tracking errors and weighting constraints. This is done by qualifying the effect of these constraints on the performance of hypothetically constructed portfolios in relation to the FTSE / JSE Top 40 Index. The results are presented graphically and show that tracking error limits did, as expected, limit the possible upside returns of these funds. It was found however, that the tracking error constraints had a much greater effect on limiting downside risk than they had on limiting upside effects. Weighting limitations did not have a single universal effect on the simulated portfolios’ performance but affect performance in conjunction with tracking error limits. It was concluded that for the hypothetically constructed portfolios for the period studied, constraints did not affect the possible upside return to such a magnitude that the constraints themselves could account for the underperformance of actively managed funds and they had an overall positive effect on performance. / Mini Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2018. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / MBA / Unrestricted

In theory, as a greater share of capital is invested passively rather than actively managed, stock prices will be freer to diverge from fair value, resulting in marginally less efficient equity markets. The effect should be an amplification of managerial skill, which manifests itself in the tails of α distributions. I find evidence that mutual fund α distributions differ increasingly as a function of the share of assets invested in passive vehicles. However, I find no evidence that the “tailedness” of the distributions increases as a function of the share of assets invested passively. This may be a result of the limited sample size, or it may be that higher levels of passive share are required for this effect to materialize.

Submitted by Diogo Bahia (dbahia@gmail.com) on 2012-08-27T20:08:37Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Diogo Bahia - Sorte vs Habilidade.pdf: 758043 bytes, checksum: 6bd1adc62ad396207bcb4032522be0f9 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Gisele Gammaro (gisele.gammaro@fgv.br) on 2012-08-27T20:16:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Diogo Bahia - Sorte vs Habilidade.pdf: 758043 bytes, checksum: 6bd1adc62ad396207bcb4032522be0f9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2012-08-30T12:57:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Diogo Bahia - Sorte vs Habilidade.pdf: 758043 bytes, checksum: 6bd1adc62ad396207bcb4032522be0f9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-28 / Initially, we test the hypothesis that actively managed funds presents alphas (excess return) when compared to the Brazilian equity indexes used by passive funds. Then bootstrap simulations check if theses alphas can be attributed just to luck. Using this methodology we find that the aggregate portfolio of actively managed Brazilian equity funds has not presented excess of return from the two most important equity indexes in Brazil (true alpha), returns considered after cost and expenses. Bootstrap simulations suggests that a greater number of funds produces better returns adjusted to benchmark than we would expect just because of randomness in the returns. / Neste trabalho testa-se inicialmente se fundos com gestão ativa apresentam alfa (excesso de retorno) em relação aos índices de referência de fundos passivos. Simulações via bootstrap visam indicar se o excesso de retorno apresentado pode ser atribuído apenas à sorte. Com esta metodologia concluiu-se que a carteira agregada de fundos de investimentos de ação com gestão ativa no Brasil não apresenta excesso de retorno em relação aos principais índices da bolsa brasileira, quando líquidos de taxas e despesas. As simulações de bootstrap sugerem que uma quantidade maior de fundos apresenta retornos ajustados ao benchmark do que o esperado pelo efeito da aleatoriedade nos resultados.

This thesis aims to investigate fund managers salaries in relation to their contributions. The study is conducted on the Swedish fund market under a period over five years, 2014-2018, and include 332 funds. The result observed shows a positive relation between salaries and risk-adjusted performance. The result proves that fund managers are able to outperform the market on average, which should not be possible to do systematically over time according to the efficient market hypothesis. It also turns out that salary has a positive relationship with assets under management. This indicates that fund managers are employed and compensated for more reasons than to generate a high return, namely to contribute to more significant inflows of cash to the fund company. Interpretations of fund managers’ salaries are primarily linked to agency theory and economics of superstars. The agency problem alter in the fund industry since the setting is two-folded. Agency problem could be mitigated by implementing a performance-based compensation structure, to aligning investors, management and fund managers’ ambitions. The result shows signs that a performance-based salary is present in the fund industry. A fund managers’ salary assumes to be based on his/her skillfulness, but could also be due to an individual’s stardom. To conclude, the thesis state that fund managers’ deserve their salary, which in relative terms are fairly high, since they procure additional benefits to the fund company.

Under de senaste åren har investeringsintresset ökat kraftigt, och i synnerhet intresset för att investera i fonder. Detta medför en problematik då valet att investera i aktivt eller passivt förvaltade fonder inte är självklart. Tidigare studier pekar åt olika håll när det kommer till detta dilemma. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka vilken förvaltningsstrategi som har gett mest avkastning i förhållande till den tagna risken och avgiften. Då marknaden under de senaste åren har varit volatil ger detta mer relevans till studiens syfte. Studiens valda tidsperiod sträcker sig mellan 2017-04-21 och 2022-04-21. För att vidare undersöka om det lönar sig att investera i aktivt förvaltade fonder med högre avgift, formuleras två hypoteser. Studien undersöker ett urval på totalt 110 aktivt och passivt förvaltade svenska aktiefonder som enbart är exponerade mot svenska bolag.           Studiens resultat av de två förvaltningsstrategiernas genomsnittliga prestations- och riskmått skiljer sig inte avsevärt gentemot varandra. Studiens resultat pekar på att indexfonderna har presterat marginellt bättre än de aktivt förvaltade fonderna och i genomsnitt har dessa gett högst avkastning till lägst tagen risk. Studiens båda hypoteser förkastades då samtliga korrelationskoefficienter påvisade svaga icke-samband samt att de inte var signifikanta på en 5% signifikansnivå. Sammanfattningsvis medför en högre avgift nödvändigtvis inte en högre avkastning eller riskjusterad avkastning. / In the recent years, the interest in investing on the stock market has increased sharply, and in particular the interest to invest in funds. This entails a problem as the choice to invest in actively or passively managed funds is not self-evident. Previous studies point in different directions when it comes to this dilemma. The purpose of this study is to examine which management strategy has given the most return in relation to the risk and the fee. As the market in recent years has been volatile, this gives the purpose of why this study is relevant. This study's investigates the market from 2017-04-21 and 2022-04-21. To further investigate whether it is profitable to invest in actively managed funds with a higher fee compared to index funds, two hypotheses are formulated. The study investigates a sample of 110 actively and passive managed Swedish equity funds that are only exposed to Swedish companies.  The conclusion of the performance and risk measures of the two management strategies do not differ significantly from each other. Marginally the result of this study indicates that the index funds have an average higher return at the lowest risk. Both hypotheses of this study were rejected when all correlation coefficients showed weak non-correlations and that they were not significant at a 5% significance level. In summary, a higher fee does not necessarily lead to a higher return or a higher risk-adjusted return.

Valet mellan aktiv respektive passiv fondförvaltning har sedan länge varit en omdiskuterad fråga inom privata fondsparandet. På senare tid har frågan kommit att återaktualiserat efter att de aktivt förvaltade storfonderna Allemansfond komplett och Kapitalinvest anklagats för vilseledande marknadsföring, då de inte har generat en högre avkastning än den generella marknaden. Inom den akademiska världen har erkända forskare och sedermera pristagare av Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne, påvisat att aktivt förvaltade fonder inte kan generera en högre avkastning med hänsyn till förvaltningsavgifterna. Utifrån förvaltningsavgifterna påvisade betydelse har vi valt att studera effekten av de rabatterade förvaltningsavgifterna, inom Premiepensionssystemet. Studiens syfte är således att under tidsperioden, 1 januari 2004 till 31 december 2013, analysera om aktiv förvaltade fonder har genererat en högre riskjusterad avkastning än passivt förvaltade fonder, då hänsyn tagits till de rabatterade förvaltningsavgifterna. Studien baserades på dagliga marknadsnoteringar av 174 aktivt förvaltade premiepensionsfonder och årliga förvaltningsavgifter.  Vidare använde vi oss av ett globalt aktiemarknadsindex, MSCI World, som utifrån definitionen av passivt förvaltade fonder var synonymt med studiens jämförelseindex. I enlighet med studiens syfte använde vi oss av det riskjusterade avkastningsmåttet Sharpekvot för att kunna besvara studiens frågeställning.  Resultatet av studien påvisade att aktivt förvaltade fonder har genererat en högre avkastning än passivt förvaltade fonder då hänsyn tagits till förvaltningsavgifter. Då även fondernas risktagande togs i anspråk blev resultatet det motsatta och vi kan därigenom konstatera att aktivt förvaltade fonder har generat en lägre riskjusterad avkastning är passivt förvaltade fonder. Vidare har vi även kunnat konstatera att aktivt förvaltade fonder med låga förvaltningsavgifter har generat en högre såväl avkastning som riskjusterad avkastning än aktivt förvaltade fonder med höga förvaltningsavgifter. / The choice between active and passive fund management has long been a contentious issue within the private mutual fund investments. Lately, the issue has been widely discussed since the actively managed funds Allemansfond komplett and Kapitalinvest was accused of misleading marketing, since their performance has not overachieved the return of the general market. In the academic world, recognized scholars and later Laureate of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, has demonstrated that actively managed funds cannot generate a higher return with regard to management fees. Based on the importance of the management fees, we have chosen to study the effect of the discount management fees, within the Premiepensionssystemet. Therefore the study's objective is to analyse whether active managed funds have generated higher risk-adjusted returns than passively managed funds, reduced for the discounted management fees. The study will be limited to analyse the period between the 1st January 2004 to 31th December 20103 The study was based on daily market quotations of 174 actively managed Premiepensionsfonder and annual management fees. Furthermore, we used a global stock market index, MSCI World, by the definition of passively managed funds that was synonymous with the study's benchmark. In accordance with the study’s purpose, we used the risk-adjusted performance measure Sharpe ratio in order to answer the research question. The results of this study demonstrated that actively managed funds have generated higher returns than passively managed funds, reduced for the discounted management fees. When the funds' risk taking was committed, the result is the opposite, and we can thus conclude that actively managed funds have yield a lower risk-adjusted returns than passively managed funds. Furthermore, we also noted that actively managed funds with low management fees has generated higher returns as well as risk-adjusted returns than actively managed funds with high management fees.

The field of behavioural finance remains to be a major criticizer to the efficient market hypothesis, claiming all humans of being rational. Some argues for the lack of behavioural aspects of investors being a main cause to the financial crisis of 2008, due to tendencies of them following same investment paths. Understanding investors’ sights and approaches is important as behavioural differences can contribute to further enhancements in the financial markets. This study examines the approaches towards the financial markets of managers of actively managed mutual funds in Sweden. By interviewing six managers of actively managed mutual funds, representative conclusions could be drawn, although, not statistically significant as for the lack of supporting numbers of significance. Representatively for the participants in this thesis, the overall estimation of the markets is considered to be efficient to some extent, but do occasionally indicate for having flaws, of which the managers are taken advantage of. Behaving rationally was found to be representative when deciding what and when to invest. Confidence have been proven to be a common attribute among the managers influencing their decisions and investments. You obtain less without confidence than you would have with it. Although, too much confidence can be damageable. There is no point of thinking of hindsight as afterthoughts does not change your past decision. / Beteendefinansiering som ämne är än idag en stor del av kritiken mot den effektiva marknadshypotesen som antar att alla människor är rationella i sitt beteende. Vissa påstår att de bristande beteendemässiga aspekterna är nästintill en huvudanledning till varför finanskrisen 2008 blev som det blev på grund av tendensen av att flertalet investerare följer samma spår. Att förstå hur investerare ser och angriper finansiella marknader är viktigt då det vidare kan möjliggöra för förbättringar på dem marknaderna. Denna studie undersöker förvaltares angreppssätt mot marknader för aktivt förvaltade fonder i Sverige. Genom att intervjua sex förvaltare för aktivt förvaltade fonder har representativa slutsatser kunnat dras, dock inte signifikanta, då metodologin brister i signifikanta siffror som stöd. Respondenternas syn på marknaden antas vara effektiv överlag, men som emellanåt indikerar för ineffektivitet. Att bete sig rationellt resulterade även det för att vara representativt gällande i vad och när man ska investera. Självförtroende i det man som förvaltare sysslar med på en daglig basis är viktigt att ha och är bevisat, dock inte med signifikant stöd av siffror, vara ett gemensamt attribut bland förvaltarna. Har man inte självförtroende som fondförvaltare kan det leda till brister, likt om man har för gott sådant. Det är heller ingen idé att tänka på vad man borde göra i efterhand då sådana eftersläpande tankar inte kan påverka dåtida beslut.