Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the difference in return between Swedish and Russian hedge funds while considering the risk taken. Method: This study is based on quantitative data on funds' historical returns from the electronic database Morningstar.se. Additional data is taken from the funds websites, the Swedish National Bank and Fondbolagens förening. Result and conclusion: All hedge funds, both the Russian and Swedish performed better thanthe index. The Russian hedge funds nevertheless performed better than their Swedishcounterparts in all three evaluation methods. / Syfte: Syfte med undersökningen är att granska skillnaderna i avkastning med hänsyn till riskenmellan svenska och ryska hedgefonder. Metod: Denna studie grundas på kvantitativ data om fondernas historiska avkastning från den elektroniska databasen Morningstar.se. Ytterligare data är hämtad från fondernas hemsidor, Riksbanken och Fondbolagens förening. Resultat och slutsats: Alla hedgefonder både de ryska och de svenska presterade bättre än index. De ryska hedgefonderna presterade dock bättre än de svenska i alla tre utvärderingsmåtten.

We investigate the activity and performance of 64 Swedish registered mutual equity funds available in the Swedish Premium Pension System from October 2002 to December 2011. Fund activity is measured by applying the holdings based analysis Active Share combined with Tracking Error Volatility (TEV). Active Share is a relatively new measure that compares a fund’s holdings with its benchmark index constituents (Cremers & Petajisto, 2009; Petajisto, 2013). This is used as a proxy for the fund’s stock selection strategy. As a complement, TEV is used as a proxy for the factor timing strategy. Performance are measured by using Jensen’s (1968) model, Fama and French’s (1993) model and Carhart’s (1997) model. We document that Swedish funds in the Premium Pension System are relatively passive in term of Active Share compared to US funds. We attribute this finding to the relative number of stocks held by a fund compared to the market. Swedish equity funds hold a relatively larger share of the number of stocks in the Swedish market while US funds hold a relatively smaller share of the stocks in the US market. We run a panel regression analysis to test the relation between Active Share and various variables. We find that funds with higher TER fees and fewer stocks on average have higher Active Share. There are also indications that TEV is positively related to Active Share. However, the overall explanatory power of the variables is low. We attribute this as evidence that Active Share is an independent measure of fund activity. Overall, we find neutral performance for an equally weighted portfolio of all funds in the PPS. To examine the performance differences between different levels of activity, we sort funds into five portfolios based on Active Share and TEV. The results show that, given a medium-to-low TEV, funds with high Active Share significantly outperform funds with low Active Share. Furthermore, it appears that the fee rebate in the Premium Pension System is important especially for the passive funds. Without the rebate, the passive funds underperform significantly. We run a panel regression analysis on the future fund performance to test the predictive abilities of Active Share and TEV. The results indicate that Active Share does not explain future performance differences. Conversely, TEV is negatively related to future performance which can be explained by fund managers being overconfident

The fund market has grown substantially during the past decades and the majority of Swedish citizens are invested in funds directly or through pension savings. There is mixed evidence on the performance of Swedish equity funds depending on the method employed and the time period studied. In this study, we set out to estimate abnormal performance using acknowledged methods during a time-period that is both longer and more recent than previous studies. Our sample is survivorship-free and consists of 150 mutual equity funds during January 1993 to December 2011. We use a four-factor model to estimate abnormal performance compared to an index and additional risk factors. We find that the average performance is neutral net of costs and that funds outperform with 1.7 percent before costs, the difference is approximately the average management fee. Over time, we find that the average abnormal performance and the share of funds that have significant outperformance have decreased while the share of significant underperformance has increased. Since the study of fund performance started in the 1960's the twin questions has been; does funds outperform the market and is this a result of pure chance or are managers skilled? Since we observe funds with significant positive and negative abnormal performance, we want to know if the results can attributed to luck or skill. We employ the latest technique, a bootstrap simulation, to test for skill or luck. This is the first study to employ the bootstrap to distinguish skill from luck in sample of Swedish funds. By ranking funds on performance after costs, we find that the performance of the majority of funds can be attributed to skill or "bad skill". The evidence is strongest in the top 95th percentile and above, and from the bottom 50th percentile and below.

Sustainability has become a major societal trend and interest in sustainable investments has increased among investors. The purpose of this study is to investigate how sustainability affects Swedish funds' returns and risk. Since research on the impact of sustainability on funds focuses mostly on investments outside Sweden, this study has limited itself to Swedish funds to fill the gap in research. The study analyzes 67 Swedish funds during 2015-2019 using various models such as CAPM, Fama-French three-factor model and Sharpe ratio. Furthermore, the funds' sustainability is measured using Morningstar's sustainability rating. Results show no signs of linear regression between sustainability and results from different models and the results of the study are not statistically significant. Thus, the study concludes that it is not sustainability that affects risk and return among the Swedish funds, but there may be other factors that have not been taken into account in this study. However, previous research shows that sustainable funds perform better and are more stable during times of crisis. This study has not examined the Swedish funds during times of crisis, but this may be an interesting topic for future research. / Hållbarhet har blivit en stor samhällstrend och intresset för hållbara investeringar har ökat bland investerare. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka hur hållbarhet påverkar Sverigefonders avkastning och risk. Eftersom forskning kring hållbarhetens påverkan på fonder fokuserar mestadels på investeringar utanför Sverige har denna studie avgränsat sig till Sverigefonder för att fylla luckan i forskningen. Studien analyserar 67 Sverigefonder under 2015-2019 med hjälp av olika modeller såsom CAPM, Fama-French trefaktormodell och Sharpekvot. Vidare mäts fondernas hållbarhet med hjälp av Morningstar hållbarhetsbetyg. Resultat visar inga tecken på linjär regression mellan hållbarhet och resultat från olika modeller samt studiens resultat är inte statistiskt signifikanta. Därmed är studiens slutsats att det inte är hållbarhet som påverkar på risk och avkastning bland Sverigefonderna utan det kan vara andra faktorer som inte tagits hänsyn till i denna studie. Däremot visar tidigare forskning att hållbara fonder presterar bättre och är mer stabila under kristider. Denna studie har inte undersökt Sverigefonderna under kristider men detta kan vara ett intressant ämne för framtida forskning.