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.

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.

The paper examines the impact of fees on the return of a fund investment using different simulation and fee structure models. The results show that fees have a significant expected impact, particularly for well-performing funds. Two simulation models were used, the Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM) model and Merton Jump Diffusion (MJD) model. Two fee structures were also analysed for each simulation, a High-water mark fee structure and a Hurdle fee structure. Comparing the GBM and MJD models, the two tend to generate very similar fee statistics even though the MJD model's day-to-day returns fit better with empirical data. When comparing the HWM and Hurdle fee models, larger differences are observed. While overall average fee statistics are similar, the performance fee statistics are significantly higher in the Hurdle fee structure for assets achieving higher returns, e.g. at least an 8% annual return. However, the HWM fee structure tends to generate higher performance fees for assets with low returns. Regression models are also developed for each combination of the simulation model and fee structure. The regression models reflect the above conclusions and can for investors serve as simple key indicators to estimate expected fund fee payments. The GBM regression results are likely more useful than the MJD regression results, as the parameters of the former are easier to calculate based on historical return data. / Uppsatsen undersöker effekten av avgifter på avkastningen av en fondinvestering med hjälp av olika simuleringar och avgiftsmodeller. Resultaten visar att avgifter förväntas ha en betydande påverkan, särskilt för fonder som genererar hög avkastning. Två simuleringar användes, Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM) och Merton Jump Diffusion (MJD). Två avgiftsstrukturer analyserades också för varje simulering, en High-water mark avgiftsstruktur och en Hurdle avgiftsstruktur. Jämförelse mellan GBM och MJD-modellerna visar att de två tenderar att generera mycket liknande avgiftsstatistik trots att MJD-modellens dagliga avkastning passar bättre med empiriska data. Vid jämförelse av HWM- och Hurdle avgiftsmodellerna observeras större skillnader. Medan den övergripande genomsnittliga avgiftsstatistiken är liknande för avgiftsmodellerna, är resultatbaserade avgifterna betydligt högre i Hurdle avgiftsstrukturen för tillgångar som uppnår högre avkastning, t.ex. minst 8% årlig avkastning. Däremot tenderar HWM-avgiftsstrukturen att generera högre resultatbaserade avgifter för tillgångar med låg avkastning. Regressionsmodeller utvecklades också för varje kombination av simulering och avgiftsstruktur. Regressionmodellerna återspeglar ovanstående slutsatser och kan för investerare fungera som enkla nyckeltal för att uppskatta förväntad kostnad av fondavgifter. GBM-regressionsresultaten är sannolikt mer användbara än MJD-regressionsresultaten, eftersom parametrarna för den förra är lättare att beräkna baserat på historisk avkastningsdata.