Summary:
Open-end funds are one of the most popular asset management tools worldwide, and the past decade has also witnessed their blossoming in China. By the end of 2016, the net asset value of open-end funds in China had increased to 8,886.899 billion RMB, gaining a market share of 97.74% in the whole fund market. Therefore, what most influences Chinese investors when selecting open-end funds is a topic worth exploring. The literature on how investors make investment decisions is mainly focused on the U.S. market. Some studies find that CAPM alpha explains U.S. mutual fund flows (Barber et al., 2016) and hedge fund flows (Agarwal et al., 2018) better than the alphas of more sophisticated models. As the Chinese fund market is still emerging, and the Chinese market differs from that of the U.S. in terms of microstructure, we are interested in how Chinese investors identify manager ability. Which aspect of fund performance do they value most when making decisions on buying or redeeming？ The risk exposure or the alpha？ And which alpha？ In addition, institutional investors are believed to have greater professional skill and information advantage compared with individual investors, and thus to be less prone to irrational issues when making decisions (Daniel et al., 1997). Do they therefore behave differently from individual investors during fund selection？ The main contribution of this paper lies in seeking to identify how investors distinguish the fund manager's active management ability from fund risk exposure over a long period. We thus compare the impact of alphas adjusted by different risk factors on the net cash flow of funds and the influence of risk exposure. Our paper also supplements the literature on the “redemption anomaly” in China's fund market by providing evidence from a new perspective. Given that rational investment decisions select funds with stable alphas, we explore the link between investor redemption behavior and the fund's alpha rather than its performance as a whole. We find differences between institutional and individual investors in the evaluation of risk adjustment benchmarks and fund manager ability, and thus provide new evidence for their behavioral differences. In the empirical section, we focus on 64 open-end funds lasting from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016, drawing all data from CSMAR. We find that the current and lagged raw excess return, CAPM alpha, Fama-French 3-factor alpha, and Fama-French 5-factor alpha all have strong explanatory power for net fund flows. The current alphas are positively correlated with net capital flow whereas the lagged alphas are negatively correlated. The results indicate that the lagged alpha has a greater effect on buying decisions, whereas the contemporaneous alpha is more responsible for redeeming behavior. Investors tend to redeem their shares when the contemporaneous fund alpha is high, perhaps to realize immediate gains. Such behavior corresponds to the “redemption anomaly” still in suspense based on the perspective of the funds' alpha, which may be related to the disposal effect in China's fund market and is adverse to the long-term development of China's fund industry. Overall, we discover that simple models such as the raw excess return and CAPM alpha can better explain changes in net fund flows, which may be due to a lack of sufficient investment tools in the Chinese market. Although some risk factors are recognized by the market, it remains difficult for individual investors to hedge against these factors at low cost or to obtain a corresponding benefit in the actual investment. Therefore, investors may resort to simple models such as CAPM as a benchmark and classify the compensation for other potential risk factors as the active management ability of the fund manager. In subsample tests, we find that individual investors rely more on simple adjustments in evaluating a fund managers' ability, while institutional investors make stricter distinctions. Further, we find that the advantages of raw excess return and CAPM alpha are mainly concentrated in periods of lower market volatility and higher investor sentiment. In addition, we find that fund flows are far more sensitive to risk exposure than to manager ability (alpha), contrary to the findings in the U.S. market (Barber et al., 2016). The tendency of Chinese investors to pay more attention to risk exposure/fund style than manager ability may lead to herding behavior that further aggravates the volatility of the capital market. Therefore, it is necessary to equip individual investors in China with more professional knowledge and more financial products to guide them, particularly to fully understand risk and enable them to manage it effectively.
李志冰, 刘晓宇. 基金业绩归因与投资者行为[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 464(2): 188-205.
LI Zhibing, LIU Xiaoyu. Fund Performance Attribution and Investor Behavior. Journal of Financial Research, 2019, 464(2): 188-205.
[1]陈超和闫作远,2009,《投资者有选择优秀基金的能力吗？——中国股票型基金的“聪明理财”效应研究》,《金融学季刊》第1期,第1～14页。 [2]高秋明、胡聪慧和燕翔,2014,《中国a股市场动量效应的特征和形成机理研究》,《财经研究》第2期,第97～107页。 [3]李曜和于进杰,2004,《开放式基金赎回机制的外部效应》,《财经研究》第12期,第111～120页。 [4]李志冰、杨光艺、冯永昌和景亮.,2017,《Fama-French 五因子模型在中国股票市场的实证检验》,《金融研究》第6期,第191～206页。 [5]林煜恩、陈秀玲和池祥萱,2014,《共同基金流量具有信息内涵吗？》,《经济研究》第1期,第176～188页。 [6]陆蓉、陈百助、徐龙炳和谢新厚,2007,《基金业绩与投资者的选择—中国开放式基金赎回异常现象的研究》,《经济研究》第6期,第39～50页。 [7]莫泰山和朱启兵,2013,《为什么基金投资人的投资回报低于基金行业的平均回报——基于“聪明的钱”效应实证检验的解释》,《金融研究》第11期,第193～206页。 [8]彭惠、江小林和吴洪,2012,《偏股型开放式基金 “赎回悖论” 的动态特征及申购异象》,《管理世界》第6期,第60～73页。 [9]束景虹,2005,《开放式基金赎回的实证研究》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第2期,第117～126页。 [10]王鹏,2013,《基金业绩与资金流量:“明星效应”存在吗？》,《南方经济》第5期,第69～84页。 [11]肖峻和石劲,2011,《基金业绩与资金流量:我国基金市场存在“赎回异象”吗？》,《经济研究》第1期,第112～125页。 [12]姚颐和刘志远,2004,《我国开放式基金赎回行为的实证研究》,《经济科学》第5期,第48～57页。 [13]张宗新和缪婧倩,2012,《基金流量与基金投资行为——基于动态面板数据模型的实证研究》,《金融研究》第4期,第110～123页。 [14]周铭山、周开国、张金华和刘玉珍,2011,《我国基金投资者存在处置效应吗？——基于国内某大型开放式基金交易的研究》,《投资研究》第10期,第87～97页。 [15]左大勇和陆蓉,2013,《理性程度与投资行为——基于机构和个人基金投资者行为差异研究》,《财贸经济》第10期,第59～69页。 [16]Agarwal, V., T. C. Green and H. Ren, 2018. “Alpha or Beta in the Eye of the Beholder: What Drives Hedge Fund Flows？”Journal of Financial Economics, 127(3):417～434. [17]Barber, B. M., X. Huang and T. Odean, 2016. “Which Factors Matter to Investors？ Evidence from Mutual Fund Flows.” The Review of Financial Studies, 29(10):2600～2642. [18]Berk, J. B., and J. H. Van Binsbergen, 2016. “Assessing Asset Pricing Models Using Revealed Preference.” Journal of Financial Economics, 119(1):1～23. [19]Carhart, M. M., 1997, “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance.” The Journal of Finance, 52(1):57～82. [20]Cao, J., J. C. Hsu, Z. Xiao, and X. Zhan, 2018. “How Do Smart Beta ETFs Affect the Asset Management Industry？ Evidence from Mutual Fund Flows”. Working paper. [21]Chiu, H. H. and O. Kini, 2014. “Equity Issuances, Equity Mutual Fund Flows, and Noise Trader Sentiment,” Review of Finance, 18(2):749～802. [22]Daniel, K., Grinblatt, M., Titman, S., and Wermers, R., 1997. “Measuring Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic‐based Benchmarks.” The Journal of finance, 52(3):1035～1058. [23]Fama, E. F. and K. R. French, 1993, “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1):3～56. [24]Fama, E. F. and K. R. French, 2015, “A Five-factor Asset Pricing Model.” Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1):1～22. [25]Fama, E. F. and K. R. French, 2017, “International Tests of a Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model.” Journal of Financial Economics, 123(3):441～463. [26]Guercio, D. D. and J. Reuter, 2014. “Mutual Fund Performance and the Incentive to Generate Alpha.” The Journal of Finance, 69(4):1673～1704. [27]Odean, T., 1998. “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses？” Journal of Finance, 53(5):1775～1798. [28]Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4):297～323.
