This thesis is a collection of three essays on hedge funds with contributions to the empirical understanding of their fees, and their voluntary disclosure of returns and assets under management, using a large consolidation of widely-employed publicly available hedge fund databases. First, time-series variation in reported fees is analysed using fund launches within hedge fund management companies, and conditioning fees at launch on fund family characteristics. Larger and better performing fund families launch high fee funds. Funds with high management fees at launch do not perform any differently from low fee funds, though funds with high incentive fees marginally outperform. An interval regression technique is proposed to overcome the discrete nature of reported fees. Secondly, the reliability of voluntary disclosures of financial information is analysed with a different measure of time-variation --- tracking changes to statements of historical performance recorded at different points in time. This uncovers evidence that historical returns are routinely revised. These revisions are not merely random or corrections of earlier mistakes; they are partly forecastable by fund characteristics. Moreover, funds that revise their performance histories, significantly and predictably underperform those that have never revised. Finally, the availability, and timing, of the selective disclosure of assets under management by funds is examined. More than a third of funds have asset records falling short of returns published. There is evidence of strategic disclosure by funds --- asset reporting drying up after times of fund stress, such as poor performance or outflows. Furthermore, investors should take heed of the greater propensity for shortfall funds to trigger fraud performance flags. These results suggest that unreliable disclosures: constitute a valuable source of information for current and potential investors; have implications for researchers; and, exhort market regulators to include assets, not just returns, in the debate around mandatory disclosure by financial institutions.

Bank-managed equity funds are not inferior to their non-bank counterparts. Previous research reporting relative underperformance of bank-managed funds ignored their differing fiduciary standards. To evaluate bank and non-bank funds facing similar fiduciary responsibilities, domestic retail funds approved for Singapore’s Central Provident Fund Investment Scheme were examined, as they meet the same standard for managing social security savings. Returns from these funds correlate highly with market performance. Even though these fund returns exceeded guaranteed interest rates, they did not outperform their market index.With financial market deregulation in Southeast Asia, local banks in small economies withstand erosion of business by foreign competitors. Banks, in order to increase profits, compete with local as well as foreign insurance and investment companies by offering mutual fund products. To remain competitive, banks need to shed their reputation for not being able to generate impressive fund returns, as their funds are not inferior to those from insurance and investment companies in terms of assets under management, expenditures, returns and risk. To gain competitive advantage, banks can differentiate their fund characteristics and reduce portfolio management costs.Mutual fund characteristics can affect expected returns or transaction costs. Factors affecting expected returns include asset allocation and systematic risk, while transaction costs include explicit and implicit ones, which can be measured by expense ratios and size of funds respectively. Insignificance of transaction cost determinants in affecting actual returns can be attributable to dominance of factors affecting expected returns.

Bank-managed equity funds are not inferior to their non-bank counterparts. Previous research reporting relative underperformance of bank-managed funds ignored their differing fiduciary standards. To evaluate bank and non-bank funds facing similar fiduciary responsibilities, domestic retail funds approved for Singapore’s Central Provident Fund Investment Scheme were examined, as they meet the same standard for managing social security savings. Returns from these funds correlate highly with market performance. Even though these fund returns exceeded guaranteed interest rates, they did not outperform their market index.With financial market deregulation in Southeast Asia, local banks in small economies withstand erosion of business by foreign competitors. Banks, in order to increase profits, compete with local as well as foreign insurance and investment companies by offering mutual fund products. To remain competitive, banks need to shed their reputation for not being able to generate impressive fund returns, as their funds are not inferior to those from insurance and investment companies in terms of assets under management, expenditures, returns and risk. To gain competitive advantage, banks can differentiate their fund characteristics and reduce portfolio management costs.Mutual fund characteristics can affect expected returns or transaction costs. Factors affecting expected returns include asset allocation and systematic risk, while transaction costs include explicit and implicit ones, which can be measured by expense ratios and size of funds respectively. Insignificance of transaction cost determinants in affecting actual returns can be attributable to dominance of factors affecting expected returns.

Bank-managed equity funds are not inferior to their non-bank counterparts. Previous research reporting relative underperformance of bank-managed funds ignored their differing fiduciary standards. To evaluate bank and non-bank funds facing similar fiduciary responsibilities, domestic retail funds approved for Singapore’s Central Provident Fund Investment Scheme were examined, as they meet the same standard for managing social security savings. Returns from these funds correlate highly with market performance. Even though these fund returns exceeded guaranteed interest rates, they did not outperform their market index.With financial market deregulation in Southeast Asia, local banks in small economies withstand erosion of business by foreign competitors. Banks, in order to increase profits, compete with local as well as foreign insurance and investment companies by offering mutual fund products. To remain competitive, banks need to shed their reputation for not being able to generate impressive fund returns, as their funds are not inferior to those from insurance and investment companies in terms of assets under management, expenditures, returns and risk. To gain competitive advantage, banks can differentiate their fund characteristics and reduce portfolio management costs.Mutual fund characteristics can affect expected returns or transaction costs. Factors affecting expected returns include asset allocation and systematic risk, while transaction costs include explicit and implicit ones, which can be measured by expense ratios and size of funds respectively. Insignificance of transaction cost determinants in affecting actual returns can be attributable to dominance of factors affecting expected returns.

This paper seeks to investigate whether management fees, set by mutual funds, rely on a set of explanatory variables. The study includes equity, bond, and money market funds, all investing in securities registered in Sweden. Results obtained from the project show that changes in assets under management, standard deviation, and tracking error, for a course of 5 years, can provide some explanation to what management fees mutual funds set. In turn, this raises many interesting questions on how capital flows and fund differentiation affects the fees. Also, a market analysis of the Swedish fund market shows that elements of monopolistic competition are present. Finally, because of the scope of this study, several suggestions on further research have been made. / Denna artikel ämnar undersöka huruvida förvaltningsavgifter, satta av fonder, beror på ett antal förklarande variabler. Studien inkluderar aktie, obligations och korträntefonder, vilka investerar i värdepapper registrerade i Sverige. Resultat erhållna från projektet tyder på att förändringar i kapital under förvaltning, standardavvikelse och spårningsfel (tracking error), alla uppmätta över 5 år, delvis kan förklara vilka avgifter fonder sätter. I sin tur väcker detta flera intressanta frågor över hur kapitalflöden och fonddifferentiering påverkar avgifter. Dessutom visar en genomförd marknadsanalys över den svenska fondmarknaden att karaktäristiska drag av monopolistisk konkurrens är närvarande. Slutligen, i samband med studiens omfattning, så har flertalet förslag på vidare studier gjorts.