FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1559919172> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1559919172 abstract "Conventional wisdom suggests that index funds are commodity-like in nature. If this presumption is accurate, price competition should be more evident with index funds than with actively managed funds. Thus, expenses should not vary widely among index funds using the same benchmark. In this paper, we investigate whether retail S&P 500 Index funds are a financial commodity. Specifically, we test whether expenses matter more for retail S&P 500 Index funds than for actively managed funds. Our analysis of 106 retail S&P 500 Index funds shows a wide disparity in (net) expense ratios. In addition, we find large performance differences among funds within diverse (net) expense ratio classes. Based on this evidence, we conclude that retail S&P 500 Index funds with low (net) expense ratios, on average, outperform those with high (net) expense ratios. Specifically, our univariate analysis shows that Sharpe ratios and Jensen alphas tend to increase as (net) expense ratios decline across standard deviation classes. Thus, lower (net) expense ratios result in improved risk-adjusted returns. Retail S&P 500 Index funds with low (net) expense ratios also tend to have higher annualized returns compared with those with (net) expense ratios that are high. Thus, lower costs mean larger returns. Our multivariate model provides evidence on characteristics that investors can use to explain performance. In this OLS model, we pool the funds and use dummies and interactions for testing the relative significance of variables across retail S&P 500 Index funds and actively managed large-cap blend funds used as a control group. We find evidence that (net) expense ratio class helps to explain performance. In addition, fund size is a distinguishing variable for performance. Cash holdings and portfolio turnover generally have a positive relation with performance but loads, especially deferred loads, and 12b-1 fees typically have the opposite relation. In addition, our results show that expenses do not matter more for retail S&P 500 Index funds than for actively managed funds. What are the implications of our findings? Mutual fund investors are likely to view index funds as financial commodities because of the common belief that such funds do not differ in any significant way, especially when tracking the same benchmark index. Evidence of large differences in (net) expense ratios across index funds casts serious doubt on using commodity as a descriptor. Further, this finding becomes more serious because price competition should be even more competitive among index funds, especially in the pricing of (net) expense ratios. Apparently, it does not. This implies that some uninformed investors are paying high costs without receiving commensurate benefits. This study provides an important lesson for mutual fund investors who are interested in retail S&P 500 Index funds. Namely, (net) expense ratios have a direct negative impact on performance. Low cost does not characterize all retail S&P 500 Index funds. Some funds charge fees and incur expenses that are too diverse along the range of outcomes to be consistent with commodities. Thus, when comparing mutual funds, investors should generally seek to minimize expenses because additional fees provide no apparent economic benefit." @default.
• W1559919172 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1559919172 creator A5055428962 @default.
• W1559919172 creator A5060437190 @default.
• W1559919172 creator A5076572211 @default.
• W1559919172 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W1559919172 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1559919172 title "Are Retail S&P 500 Index Funds a Financial Commodity? Insights for Investors" @default.
• W1559919172 cites W1536521273 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W1986197793 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2011170429 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2012301648 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2025813918 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2055337889 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2061436099 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2064722774 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2069040587 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2078870183 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2136582409 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2141399757 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2143173505 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2169645335 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W2169786125 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W311026209 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3121661561 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3122187992 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3122917418 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3124277734 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3124446059 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3124634564 @default.
• W1559919172 cites W3124733355 @default.
• W1559919172 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1143102" @default.
• W1559919172 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W1559919172 type Work @default.
• W1559919172 sameAs 1559919172 @default.
• W1559919172 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W1559919172 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1559919172 hasAuthorship W1559919172A5055428962 @default.
• W1559919172 hasAuthorship W1559919172A5060437190 @default.
• W1559919172 hasAuthorship W1559919172A5076572211 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C106159729 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C155301685 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C206757995 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C2777382242 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C2779439359 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C54750564 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C6243943 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConcept C73283319 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C10138342 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C106159729 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C136764020 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C144133560 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C155301685 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C162324750 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C206757995 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C2777382242 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C2779439359 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C39389867 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C41008148 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C54750564 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C6243943 @default.
• W1559919172 hasConceptScore W1559919172C73283319 @default.
• W1559919172 hasLocation W15599191721 @default.
• W1559919172 hasOpenAccess W1559919172 @default.
• W1559919172 hasPrimaryLocation W15599191721 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W1842314413 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W2198833542 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W2389829403 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W2468487612 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W3123862164 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W3124088497 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W3203131942 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W3209896409 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W3213362406 @default.
• W1559919172 hasRelatedWork W900511900 @default.
• W1559919172 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1559919172 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1559919172 magId "1559919172" @default.
• W1559919172 workType "article" @default.