Sammanfattning Antalet investeringsfonder och intresset för dessa har under de senaste åren ökat drama-tiskt. 94 % av den svenska befolkningen mellan 18-74 år sparar i någon form av fond. Un-der 2005 uppgick det totala fondkapitalet till ungefär 1,4 miljarder SEK. Det gör detta till ett viktigt ämne att studera vidare. Syftet med denna uppsats att analysera om det är något samband mellan förvaltningsavgif-ter, avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och marknadsanpassad förvaltningsavgift och av-kastning i svenska aktiefonder. Vidare, skiljer sig prestationen mellan fonder beroende på om de är förvaltade av banker, listade som premiepensionsfonder eller förvaltade av andra fondbolag? För att analysera dessa frågor användes ’panel least square’ regressioner. Populationen bestod av 63 aktiefonder inom en tidsram av 20 kvartal. Dummy variabler användes för att särskilja bank- och premiepensionsfonder från den totala populationen. Observationerna visade liksom tidigare forskningen blandade resultat. Ingen relation hitta-des mellan avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och förvaltningsavgift. Detta indikerar att fondbolagen inte tar hänsyn till den förväntade avkastningen när de fastställer sin förvaltningsavgift, vilket överensstämmer med tidigare forskning. Ett negativt samband hittades emellertid mellan den marknadsanpassade avkastningen och förvaltningsavgiften. Generellt presterade banker i genomsnitt bättre än fondbolag som varken var bank- och/eller premiepensionsfonder när det gäller avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och marknadsanpassad avkastning. Vidare, fonderna med någon avgift utöver förvaltningsavgif-ten var de med den i genomsnitt näst sämsta gällande avkastning. / The number of investmentfunds have dramatically increased in the last years and so have the interest in funds. 94% of the Swedish population between 18-74 years are investing in some kind of mutual fund. In 2005 the total fund capital was approximately 1.4 billion SEK. That makes this an important topic to investigate further. Therefore this thesis purpose is to analyse if there is any relationship between administrationfees, returns, the risk-adjusted performances. Furthermore, does the performance of the Swedish mutual funds differ dependent on whether they are managed by banks or if they are listed as Premiepensionsmyndigheten (PPM) funds, or run by other mutual fund companies? To analyse the problem a panel least square regression was used. The population consisted of 63 Swedish mutual equity funds over 20 quarters. Dummy variables were used to separate the banks- and PPM funds from the total population. The findings are mixed compared to previous research. There seem to be no relationship between the return, the risk-adjusted return and the administration fee. This indicates that the fund companies do not set their administration fee based on the expected return. However, a negative relationship was found between the market-adjusted return and administration fee. In general, the banks, on average, outperformed, the mutual fund companies that were not bank and/or PPM funds, in return, risk-adjusted return and market-adjusted return. Further, the funds with some additional fee had the on average second lowest efficiency in terms of return on the market.

<p>Sammanfattning</p><p>Antalet investeringsfonder och intresset för dessa har under de senaste åren ökat drama-tiskt. 94 % av den svenska befolkningen mellan 18-74 år sparar i någon form av fond. Un-der 2005 uppgick det totala fondkapitalet till ungefär 1,4 miljarder SEK. Det gör detta till ett viktigt ämne att studera vidare.</p><p>Syftet med denna uppsats att analysera om det är något samband mellan förvaltningsavgif-ter, avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och marknadsanpassad förvaltningsavgift och av-kastning i svenska aktiefonder. Vidare, skiljer sig prestationen mellan fonder beroende på om de är förvaltade av banker, listade som premiepensionsfonder eller förvaltade av andra fondbolag?</p><p>För att analysera dessa frågor användes ’panel least square’ regressioner. Populationen bestod av 63 aktiefonder inom en tidsram av 20 kvartal. Dummy variabler användes för att särskilja bank- och premiepensionsfonder från den totala populationen.</p><p>Observationerna visade liksom tidigare forskningen blandade resultat. Ingen relation hitta-des mellan avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och förvaltningsavgift. Detta indikerar att fondbolagen inte tar hänsyn till den förväntade avkastningen när de fastställer sin förvaltningsavgift, vilket överensstämmer med tidigare forskning.</p><p>Ett negativt samband hittades emellertid mellan den marknadsanpassade avkastningen och förvaltningsavgiften.</p><p>Generellt presterade banker i genomsnitt bättre än fondbolag som varken var bank- och/eller premiepensionsfonder när det gäller avkastning, riskjusterad avkastning och marknadsanpassad avkastning. Vidare, fonderna med någon avgift utöver förvaltningsavgif-ten var de med den i genomsnitt näst sämsta gällande avkastning.</p> / <p>The number of investmentfunds have dramatically increased in the last years and so have the interest in funds. 94% of the Swedish population between 18-74 years are investing in some kind of mutual fund. In 2005 the total fund capital was approximately 1.4 billion SEK. That makes this an important topic to investigate further.</p><p>Therefore this thesis purpose is to analyse if there is any relationship between administrationfees, returns, the risk-adjusted performances. Furthermore, does the performance of the Swedish mutual funds differ dependent on whether they are managed by banks or if they are listed as Premiepensionsmyndigheten (PPM) funds, or run by other mutual fund companies?</p><p>To analyse the problem a panel least square regression was used. The population consisted of 63 Swedish mutual equity funds over 20 quarters. Dummy variables were used to separate the banks- and PPM funds from the total population.</p><p>The findings are mixed compared to previous research. There seem to be no relationship between the return, the risk-adjusted return and the administration fee. This indicates that the fund companies do not set their administration fee based on the expected return.</p><p>However, a negative relationship was found between the market-adjusted return and administration fee.</p><p>In general, the banks, on average, outperformed, the mutual fund companies that were not bank and/or PPM funds, in return, risk-adjusted return and market-adjusted return. Further, the funds with some additional fee had the on average second lowest efficiency in terms of return on the market.</p>

The financial performance of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) strategies is heavily debated in the modern age. Due to lack of evidence on Swedish SRI performance, Swedish investors are uncertain about placing their financial assets in these strategies as they are afraid expected to sacrifice their financial return for doing good. The purpose of this study is to examine and evaluate the financial and risk-adjusted performance of Swedish registered SRI mutual equity funds compared to conventional mutual equity funds during 2010-2020. The study’s dataset consists of a total of 236 mutual equity funds, with a sample of 133 SRI funds and 103 conventional funds. Financial performance measures used in this study are alpha, estimated through the Carhart four-factor model, and the Sharpe Ratio. The analysis between SRI mutual equity funds and conventional mutual equity funds indicated an insignificant difference in both financial and risk-adjusted performance. Based on the evidence provided, the study concludes that Swedish investors who put ethical, environmental and social values into their investment decision making process do not have to sacrifice their expected financial return, nor will their investment entail a higher degree of risk.

The mutual fund industry in Sweden has grown rapidly over the past years. Research has been made on the topic for over 50 years, however there are still uncertainties about the determinants of fund performance. The purpose of this study was to examine what determines the risk-adjusted performance of mutual equity funds available to Swedish investors.  A side-purpose was included to examine to what extent the Efficient Market Hypothesis holds in Sweden. A simple random sample was conducted where 500 equity funds were included. From Refinitiv/Thomson Reuters Eikon Datastream fund characteristics were downloaded. To find the abnormal return of mutual equity funds, a hybrid Fama-French Carhart factor model was used which includes both domestic Swedish factors and global factors. The model was used to calculate the yearly risk-adjusted performance for each fund using 12 months return. This was denominated Alpha which was used as the dependent variable in the regression models. Further, to determine the characteristics which affect risk-adjusted performance two multiple regression models with six independent variables and three control variables are constructed. Further, a one sample t-test was conducted to test the market efficiency for mutual funds available to Swedish investors. Eight statistical hypotheses were created and tested in which two found a significant result which were that alpha differs from zero and Total Expense Ratio determines the risk-adjusted performance.   To conclude, findings showed only the character Total Expense Ratio determines risk-adjusted performance of mutual equity funds available to Swedish investors. In conclusion the control variables year, geographical focus and currency affect the fund performance. The study is an interesting aspect for Swedish investors and fund managers since the study implies deeper knowledge about the mutual fund industry in Sweden and therefore should be concerned by the variable TER to earn abnormal returns. Further, the study contributes with a theoretical discussion in line with the results concerning Efficient Market Hypothesis, the Diversification Effect and Modern Portfolio Theory. Conclusions are drawn based on our result that the Efficient Market Hypothesis does hold in the Swedish fund market. Although only one character determines the risk-adjusted performance and average investor should choose funds that follow the market, based on the skill level of average investors.

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 &amp; 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.