new microsoft word document
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: New Microsoft Word Document](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072011/55cf989a550346d0339898f2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Literature Review on Mutual Funds
A study was conducted by Grinblatt and Titman (1989) to examine the superior stock selection abilities of
mutual fund managers through which researcher generated abnormal returns. For this purpose a sample
of 274 funds was taken from 1974 to1984. Study applied Jensen Measure and compared the abnormal
returns of active and passive investment strategies both with and without transaction costs, fees, and
expenses. The results showed that the actual returns of these funds do not exhibit abnormal performance
indicating that investors cannot take advantage of the superior abilities of these portfolio managers by
purchasing shares in the mutual funds.
A company that collected money from a group of people with common investment objectives to buy
different securities is called mutual fund. The collected holding of these securities was known as its
portfolio Mark (2007). According to Teri (2007) mutual fund is a professional investment company which
managed collection of stocks, bonds, or other securities owned by a group of investor. Each mutual fund
had a fund manager who purchased and sold the fund’s investment according to the fund goals. Fund
managers were responsible to analyze the economic conditions, industry trends, government regulations
and the impact on stocks before selecting the securities for investment.
Mutual funds provided investment facility to the small investors who cannot afford to invest the large sums
of money Teri (2007). Basically these small investors invested money into a common fund and handover
the investment decision to fund manager. Many people often regard the beginning of Foreign and
Colonial Government Trust as the beginning of modern day mutual funds. But the beginning of mutual
funds dates back to Seventeenth century when the first "pooling of money" for investments was done in
1774. Following the financial crisis of 1772-1773 a Dutch merchant Ketwich invited investors to come
together to form an investment trust under the name of Eendragt Maakt Magt David (2007). The purpose
of the trust was to provide diversification at low cost to the small investors.
In order to spread risk, the fund invested in various countries such as Austria, Denmark, German States,
Spain, Sweden, Russia etc. In 18th century Amsterdam Stock Exchange had only a small number of listed
equities due to which the trust invested only in bonds. However after war with England many colonial
bonds defaulted due to which there was sharp decline in the investments. As a result, share redemption
was suspended in 1782 and later the interest payments were decreased too. The fund was no longer
attractive for investors and vanished. These early mutual funds before heading to the United States took
![Page 2: New Microsoft Word Document](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072011/55cf989a550346d0339898f2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
root in England and France in the 1890s. On the other hand “Massachusetts Investors' Trust of Boston”
was the first open-end fund Formed in 1924. The growth of pooled investments was hampered by stock
market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression but Securities Act of 1933 and Company Act of 1940
restored investor’s confidence and industry witnessed steady growth after that.
Several measures are used in the literature on mutual fund performance evaluation but there is (still) a
large controversy around them. Some of the important risk-adjusted techniques include the Sharpe (1966)
measure, the Treynor (1965) measure and the Jensen (1968) measure. These measures were frequently
called traditional measures of performance evaluation and were based on the idea that the combination of
any portfolio with the risk-free asset is located in the expected return or beta space. The Jensen measure
has been the most commonly used performance measure in academic and non-academic empirical
studies. On the other hand Sharpe’s reward-to-variability ratio was also very popular and was frequently
used by the researchers. Some of the empirical work on the performance of mutual funds was given
below.
Sharpe (1966) introduced the measure to evaluate the mutual funds’ risk-adjusted performance. The
measure was known as reward-to-variability ratio (Currently Sharpe Ratio). With the help of this ratio he
evaluated the return of 34 open-end mutual funds in the period 1945-1963. The results showed the capital
market was extremely efficient due to which majority of the sample had lower performance as compared
to the Dow Jones Index. Sharpe (1966) found that from 1954 to 1963 only 11 funds outperformed the
Dow-Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) while 23 funds were outperformed by the DJIA. Study concluded
that the mutual funds were inferior investments during the period.
Previously two- and three-moment analyses were used to analyze the mutual fund performance relative
to market performance. But Joy and Porter (1974) applied first-, second-, and third-degree stochastic
dominance principles to investigate the same question. Study suggested that the proper test of mutual
fund performance relative to the market (DJIA) is a test employing stochastic dominance principles. Such
a test necessitates a pair wise comparison between each fund and the DJIA. Therefore Joy and Porter
(1974) collected the performance data for the 34 funds analyzed by both Sharpe (1966) and Arditti (1971)
for the ten-year period 1954-1963. Price and dividend data were also collected for the DJIA over the
same period. Study supported the earlier Sharpe (1966) study and opposed the Arditti (1971) work and
concluded that mutual fund performance was inferior to market performance over the period 1954-1963.