TO EXPLORE THE PERFORMANCE OF CLOSED ENDED EQUITY FUNDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND THE DISCOUNT PUZZLE
The closed-end equity fund performance in the market continues to be a major field of study to many financial market analysts specifically with its association with discount entitled to it. This paper seeks to explore the performance of closed ended equity funds in the United Kingdom over the past five years. Equities generally have high volatility in their return patterns hence the massive interest in their performance study. Not many problems present in finance are as mysterious as the ones in closed-ended equity funds specifically with the discount factor mystery attached to them. Closed end equity fund is an example of a mutual fund which normally has other securities that are traded publicly under its portfolio. The close-ended equity fund offers a constant number in shares which are involved in trading in the stocks market. For liquidation of the holding a fund possesses, the investor has to sell the shares owned to other investors rather than convert them with the involvement of the fund which possesses them for the net asset value per each share held. The closed-end fund mystery is the empirical discovery in that closed-end fund shares usually are sold at prices which are not of the same cost with the value of each share held by the fund in the market. Despite the fact that equity funds are sold at premium in relation to their net asset values, in the period of a few years ago the discounts of 10 to 20 percent have been the usual rate of trade. According to www.moneyworks.ae Premium is defined as (share price-net asset value)/(net asset value) an discount as a negative premium.
This recent increment in the rate of discounts has put the closed end equity fund under heavy scrutiny. The funds which cannot maintain the discounts under agreeable range are at high risk of disappearing.
Table of contents
2.0 Literature review…………..……………………………………………………………14
2.0.1 US funds………………………………………………………………………………..15
2.0.2 UK funds………………………………………………………………………………..17
2.0.3 Open end funds………………………………………………………………………….19
2.04 Managerial performance……………………………………………………………….21
2.0.5 The discount…………………………………………………………………………….25
2.0.6 Capital structure…………………………………………………………………………28
2.0.8 Management contract and fees…………………………………………………………30
2.0.9 Premiums, closed end fund returns, and NAV returns……………………………….30
2.1.0 Portfolio composition…………………………………………………………………….31
2.1.4 Past performance………………………………………………………………………….34
2.1.5 Market conditions…………………………………………………………………………34
3.0.1 Performance measure of mutual funds…………………………………………………..35
3.0.2 Treynor measure………………………………………………………………………….37
3.0.3 Sharpe measure……………………………………………………………………………38
3.0.4 Comparison between Treynor and Sharpe measures…………………………………..38
3.0.5 Jenson model………………………………………………………………………………39
3.0.6 Fama model………………………………………………………………………………..40
3.0.7 Determinants of discounts on closed end funds…………………………………………41
4.0 Analysis and findings……………………………………….………………………………44
4.0.1 Data sources……………………………………………………………………………….44
4.0.2 Portfolio samples…………………………………………………………………………..44
4.0.3 Index construction and description variables…………………………………………..45
4.0.4 Empirical model……………………………………………………………………………47
4.0.5 Empirical tests…………………………………………………………………………….49
4.0.6 Long run impact of small investor holdings on discount………………………………53
4.0.7 Data sources……………………………………………………………………………….55
4.0.8 Empirical findings…………………………………………………………………………59
5.0 Conclusions and recommendations……………………….……………………………….63
List of tables……………………………………………………………………………………..85
List of graphs……………………………………………………………………………………85
The closed-end equity funds in the United Kingdom have had different rates of discounts over the last several decades. The discount at many times occasionally gives evidence of the lack of ability of investors to predict profits and shortcomings in the best time to minimize the ir liability to taxes. The factors that affect the discount are by the managerial skills, the fund feat and the expectations and prospects of a failure. Earlier studies by Dimson and Palleulio have tried to explain the ways to gain from the closed end equity funds. Though there is some evidence of profits, it does not hold enough ground that the methods are highly credible for continuous profits. This study examines the dynamics that are present in the time-series of discounts present in the closed-end equity fund and the relation they have with their portfolio concert and manager earnings. With the case of the replacement of managers the funds performs poorer from its predecessors but later improves and stabilizes.
Additionally, there is evidence that the variations in the discount give a clear citation to the investor about skills of the managers of the fund, also investor expectancy of a future manager replacement in short time. Distinctively, prior to surrogate, the discount to begin with appreciates but the performance of the fund performance diminishes, and then stagnates from responding to further meager performance. In the case of local equity funds, the discount which is peer-adjusted first appreciates by approximately 5%, and then depreciates by a propos of 3% by the time of substitution. In addition there is the finding that discount deviations give a clear view of past and predict prospect portfolio feat in the funds with no case of replacement of managers. On the whole, the consequences are unswerving containing a momentous fraction in the discounts of the closed end funds in the relation to the talent of the manager.
This study seeks to demystify the relationship present between the closed end equity funds and the discount. This is an area studied by many financial researchers and analysts but none has been able to conclusively explain this relationship and interconnection. It is a very wide area to study yet it has very minimal in number of the key areas of focus. The demystification of the closed end funds’ discounts still remains the major area of research of many scholars upto this day.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The closed-ended equity fund phenomenon has majorly been a major field of study over the precedent years as it continues to be a major mystery in the economics of finance. This definitely has led to the proposition of numerous extensive literature resolutions. Past studies have attempted to demystify this puzzle but have failed to fully do so to contention. The precise definition of the closed-end fund is an investment company which possesses holds the portfolios of different public traded securities under its name. The fund has a fixed market capitalization and the price of the stock has an indirect connection to the worth of possessions equivalent to every one share. The stock prices of the funds are expected to equal the net asset values (NAV) of their underlying portfolios. But, the results of the many empirical studies show that the stocks of the closed-ended funds trade at a lesser price to that of their net asset values. This is considered as a discount which varies with time. To take a case example of the 1970s, most funds trading in the United States were at a discount of 20% while those in the United Kingdom were at 50% discount (Dimson and Minio-Kozerski, 1999).
Many trials to explain the closed-end fund discounts have been carried out. The 1980s bull market, beginning of the funds with not realistic objectives and tax-exempt wrappers renewed the interest and focus on the closed-end equity funds. The discount had depreciated by the middle of the 1990s decade to 5-10% despite the fact that in the near-past years it has appreciated to approximately 10-15%. There is immense comprehensive provision of survey on the subject up to late 1990s by Dimson and Minio-kozerski (1999). They study extensively issues like liquidity, tax treatment, costs of the agency which include the ability fee charged by managers, investor sentiment theory and the segmentation of the market which was first put forward by Lee et al (1991). Theoretically, there is a very strong relationship between managerial ability and the discount on condition that there is no change of the manager. For instance, poor performance results in the lowering of the perception of the investor on the managerial ability. This in turn results in an increase in the discount to entice the investor not to leave. If managers are frequently changed this perception is weakened considerably. Hence the empirical interconnection between the discount present in the fund and the managerial skills will significantly and majorly depend on if the managers who are underperformers are eliminated and the high-performing ones are maintained. They result into a conclusion that “many hypotheses have been suggested to explain the discount, but none seem to solve the closed-end fund puzzle” (p.35).
While the individual discounts of some of the closed-end equity funds are within the range of the industry average, others have had very severe fluctuations which cannot be related in any way whatsoever to the market conditions. An excellent case scenario is the German fund just after the collapse of the Berlin wall whereby there was a reverse in the trading of shares from a discount to a premium which was more than a hundred percent. This trend spread to other countries as their funds realized a decrease in the discount or an increment in the premium though this phenomenon was very much short-lived. (Hardouvelis, La Porta and Wizman(1994)). These kinds of episodes happen on frequent basis and deviations in the discount over some period of time, and also across funds tend to be not easy to elaborate. A lot of factors are available that may give the explanation of the association between the closed end funds and the discount. They are; restricted stock or illiquid assets, distribution policy, unrealized capital gain, a fund’s shares in comparison to that of a fund’s stock holdings liquidity, agency cost or management expenses, insider ownership, past fund financial records, turnover, price level of shares, proportion of foreign stock owned, fund size and investor sentiments about the stock market. Despite all these studies, very little is known about the determinants of the closed-end equity fund discounts present in the emerging markets. The paper hereby aims at demystifying the factors that determine the discounts in the closed-end funds traded in the UK stock markets over the last five years.
Massive literature tries to give explanation of the existence of discount in the closed-end equity fund market. There are four major theories put forward by the financial analysts which try to put in plain words the existence of this discount. These are; bias in estimates of NAV (overhanging tax liabilities or illiquid assets); agent costs (managerial dissipation and the present value of the fees of management); explanations based on segmented markets; and the loss of potential tax-timing options (www.econ.uoa.gr). But, not any of these presented theories have been able to fully explain this phenomenon. The up to date augment in the standard rate of discount in the United Kingdom has led the sector to be put under vivid inspection. The funds which are not able to maintain their discounts within the range that is acceptable are at a high risk of closure and recently to say the least every month in the UK there is a fund announcing wind-up strategies or restructuring preparations. Simultaneously, there is a number of fresh floatation of closed-end equity funds. Reputable funds that acquire and maintain a required need will survive from disappearance (Elroy D. and Carolina M. 2002). there will be further provision of opportunity by the European monetary union to bring closed-end (as well as open-end) funds to investors all over Europe according to some financial managers.
The above theories have deviated from the proficient market model, and have led to the introduction of models based on limited level-headedness. The closed-ended equity funds in the United Kingdom are majorly held by institutional settings rather than private equities. Recently, research that has been carried out on open-ended funds show that the performance of the fund can be reliably measured only in the sense that it is projected using a factor model of proceeds. There is now evidence with factor-based performance dealings of the performance of managers, many times putting into use the raw net asset value gain as the performance metric. Nevertheless, because of the frequent investment in the limited performance persistence amongst open-ended funds, the discount in the closed ended fund tends to increase. By contrast, researches on the closed- end equity funds for example Malkiel (1977) and Pontiff (1995) have up till now gained rudimentary dealings of closed end funds by specialized investment of the market, it is highly important for the evaluation of their performance in relation to an appropriate fund specific benchmark be carried out.
All these studies about the closed-end equity funds try to explain the connection between the managerial skills and the discount involved. This helps understand the performance of the equity funds. However these studies have failed to fully explain the presence of the discount in the equity fund markets not only in the UK but around the world as well. The aim of this paper is to further demystify and explain the correlation between the closed-ended equity funds and the discount factor puzzle in the past five years in the United Kingdom. The most important measures of performance involved in this form of study include the Sharpe measure, the Treynor measure and the Jenson model. The Sharpe gauge considers risk entitled to the entire fund and is hence significant for even minute investors as the common investor does not have skills together with knowledge to spread his/her investments.
This research will put into account the data emitted from the London stock market, financial journals and other financial literature materials on the performance of the closed-ended equity funds in the United Kingdom together with the discount factor over the past recent years. Although at time equity sells at a quality of their net asset value, discounts of approximately 10 and 20 percent have been the norm in the recent past. This research study scrutinizes the fluctuations of the discounts in the closed-ended equity funds in the United Kingdom over the past five years. The investor sentiment theory and the managerial skills are put under extensive scrutiny in this paper. The fundamental feature of the closed-end fund is fully put into focus by the investor sentiment theory in comparison to open-ended funds in the sense that they carry out risks on discounts in alignment with Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), it has to be accredited in the sense that it is very much systematic. However, a major shortcoming of this hypothesis is that it does not fully explain the fluctuations of the different discounts on different closed-ended equity funds.
Discounts depict performance of the past but do not project the performance of the manager in future. According to Gruber (1996), closed-ended fund prices may include managerial performance prospect, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. Secondly, in the pricing of these fund terms, the price of the share income and profits show no perseverance in the performance. However, there is minimal evidence of reversal of the price which is majorly attributed to the mean reversion present in the discount. Multi-factor regression is used to study and evaluate managerial skills.
The managerial skill can give an explanation to the fact that the discount has been rejuvenated and not made-up according to theory by Ross (2002). According to Gruber, Elton and Blake’s (1996a) study of open-ended funds, there is insignificant evidence in closed-end equity funds in the pushiness of performance of the manager. In earlier studies of British closed-end funds, Pontiff’s (1996) findings are rendered credible in the evidence that in the cases of higher residual risk in a fund, the more the price of its shares is likely to vary from the net asset value. Generally, the amount of price a minor investor is ready to pay for a fund, in relation to their net asset for every share, will basically show the apparent managerial skills; open-end equity funds are such a good example of the scenario in which the price and the net asset value are required to be equal.
This paper seeks to clarify if the under-performing managers are substituted? How discounts together with their dynamics are in relation to the issue of managerial replacements? And also whether there is the presence of any relationship between the discounts and performance after there is the control for managerial take-over? There is also the examination of investor sentiments put into measurements by the variation in the discount in the closed-end equity funds involves the common stocks gain generation procedure if the closed-end stocks are susceptible to the factor significantly as depicted by Lee et al (1991). A lot of data for analysis is obtained from the London stock exchange. Over the past five years the discount on the closed end equity funds has been on variation in the ranges of 10%. No economic hypothesis has managed to give an explanation about the closed end fund discount leading to the in depth scrutiny of the behavioral trends explanations. This makes the study shift towards the direction of the investor sentiments and its effects on the discount. It led earlier studies to deduce that it is logical that the investor sentiments have an impact on the rate of discount on the closed end equity fund. Manager replacement events may affect the volatility of the discount. In the UK in the 1960s, the closed-end funds were very much preferred and majorly held by private investors. Dimson and Mini-Pauello studied earlier theories to details and found that there was not a single one of them accounts fully and efficiently for the closed end fund independently given the notion that the market remains efficient. In the cases where the investors have limited information about the closed-end funds they are likely to be deterred from investment by others who give insufficient prospects about the diminishment of the discount on the fund.
Chapter 2: Literature review
Close end funds are entailed with a very strange phenomenon in finance which is not easily understood even after the numerous studies carried out on the fund. It is further complicated with the existence of discount in the fund and the behavior of the discount under different circumstances. Shares in the closed end equity fund are traded at premium to the net asset value of approximately 10%. The value of the premium coordinates to the start up fees and the underwriting cost. But, many times within several months the shares are listed in the stock market at a discount. On insolvency (open ending) of the fund, the shares’ price rise and the discount automatically disappear. The question still remains how the assortment of traded securities starts its life being valued at much extra than the worth of its components, spends a major part of its time being a smaller amount worthy than its own segment parts and finally ends up at a value equal to its constituents? This paper research seeks to relinquish the mystery that is associated with the closed end fund in the UK in the last five years with assistance from reference of earlier studies. One of such studies is Dimson and Minio-Kozerski (1999).
There are a lot of structural advantages present in the British closed end equity funds. They gain majorly from the considerable flexibility and the requirement to allocate at least a minimum of 85% of the dividends obtained from their worth. The gains from the investment cannot be disseminated and hence are reinvested in the fund, and the investment gains have been free from from corporate taxation since 1980. Most of the UK closed end equity funds often put into use this opportunity majorly to influence their portfolios. The British closed end equity funds are in some cases very similar to the US equity fund and have gone through similar periods of discounts and premiums.
2.0.1 US funds
Tax and regulatory status restrictions are some of the major challenges experienced in this market, the funds are obligated to dispense 90 percent of the acquired investment returns to attain qualification for segregation from corporation taxation. These closed end equity funds on the odd occasion take on any leverage. But, they have been very much favorable to the investors as they provide major exposure to the complicated and particular portfolios mostly with a center of attention on foreign or illiquid investments. Quite a lot of thoughts from different studies have been put forward trying to make sensual advances and understanding of the discount associated with the closed end equity funds. Though there have been many theories put forward, none of them fully explains the puzzle of the discount on the closed end equity funds. Two majorly important theorems of elucidation are slip-up of the net asset value and existence of agency expenses. Due to tax liabilities associated with unrealized capital gains, the net asset value may be misestimated or also due to the illiquidity of the funds’ holdings. Malkiel (1977) discovers that tax liabilities can be able to give a credible explanation for discount on the fund of not more than 6 percent. On addition, there is legitimacy that the prices of closed end funds rise on the instance of open-ending (Brauer (1984), Brickley and Schallheim (1985)) does not in any way give credibility of the hypothesis that net asset value is overestimated.
The discount may be termed as an outcome of the investors expecting managerial debauchery and capitalizing future management fees as it is from the agency perspective. From the study done by Malkiel (1977), there is no presence of any credible evidence of correlation between the managerial expenses and discounts. The theory put forward by Boudreaux (1973) purports that discounts show the prospects of prospect managerial performance. But, later studies do not find any distinct evidence of any important relationship between discounts and the future performance of net asset value. There is only a weak relationship as discovered by Roenfeldt and Tuttle in 1973.
Given that taxation on capital losses and gains is taxed upon acquirement and not accumulation, the best tax trading tactic is to discover capital losses instantly and postpone gains in anticipation of a forced liquidation (Constantinides 1983, 1984). An explanation of the discount may arise that an assortment of options to comprehend gains is more important than that of the resultant portfolio. There is legitimacy unfailing with the hypothesis that managed funds refute taxable investors the tax-trading opportunities linked with distinctive movements and variations of the entity security prices in the portfolio (Brickley 1991, Kim 1994). But there is the presence of a small number of investors who do business to minimize their tax arrears and others buy and hold stocks for the longer term (Odean 1998).
Many more explanations for the closed-end equity fund discount make their centre of attention to be the various forms of market segmentation. In the international market, closed end equity funds are affected by the exposure to the market whose equity gains are influenced by a diverse investor foundation than that of the local market. Locally, the price of the funds might be set so as to show responses to the managers by the private investors or their sales labors or the unusual valuations imposed on these companies by institutions in comparison to individuals. But, these theories and forms of study do not fully provide a credible explanation that appropriately solves the puzzle in the discount present on the closed ended equity funds. Careful studies give evidence that profits may be realized from uncomplicated procedures based on the level of the discount (Thompson 1978). The evidence of the inefficiency and unreliability of the US closed end fund market has led to the development of limited rationality model put forward by later schools of studies (Waldmann 1990). They purport that the presence of irrational sentiment of individual investors who are a majority in the US closed end fund markets, introduces an extra noise trader risk on the asset with which they trade. The threat present due this is priced and valued at equilibrium because the variations in investor sentiments are interlinked transversely of the investors and can never be varied away. According to Thaler (1991), discount are interrelated with the prices of other securities that are affected by similar investor sentiment for example the small stocks. In 1993, Miller punched holes into the credibility of the sentiment theory by doubting the connection between the premium and discount on the minute firms. Further research by Swaminathan (1996) shows that, miniature investor sentiments should not only affect present prices of the stocks, but should also be in a position to forecast future returns and gains of the stock. Reliable evidence is emitted by the empirical results cite that discounts conjecture miniature firm returns better than they do on the case of huge firm returns.
The main aim of this paper is to research the performance of the close- end equity funds in the United Kingdom in the period of the past five years and the discount that is interjected with the fund market. The existence of the discount despite the many studies continues to be a mystery in the financial market world. Compared to America, British closed end funds are more advantageous. British closed-end equity funds do possess a lot of structural niceties. They gain majorly from the considerable flexibility and the compulsion to dispense at least a minimum of 85% of the dividends obtained from their wealth. The gains acquired from the principal investment cannot be disseminated and hence are reticulated in the fund, and the investment returns have been excused from corporate taxation as from 1980. Most of the United Kingdom closed end equity funds often make use of this prospect majorly to influence their own portfolios. The British closed end equity funds are in some cases very similar to the US equity fund and have gone through similar periods of discounts and premiums. In Britain, the majority of the closed-end equity fund shares are institutionally hence there is a limitation on the rationality theory.
Studies by Levis and Thomas in 1995 give evidence that United Kingdom closed-end equity fund first offer to the public are subject to ‘hot’ durations of time of issue which majorly happen together with a discernible minimization of the discounts possessed by the veteran funds. There is much similarity of the aftermarket performance to that of the general equity initial public offers and the long term underperformance is small. A study by Draper (1989) showed that the prices of the United Kingdom closed-end fund shares significantly act in response to any reports of takeovers, open-ending and insolvency. By the time the month ends when all news about the open-ending has been included into the price of the shares, there is no further rise in the stock thereafter. The UK closed end fund market seems to react in haste to the broadcast of open-ending of the funds.
Draper puts forward a theory that significantly predicates that the post-announcement profits and gains from the funds that result in open-end are mainly realized if prices in the middle of the market are put to use. In the cases where prices are attuned to cater for the costs of transactions, strange gains never even reach near the levels present in US as stated by Brickley (1985). Further amendment of discount based strategies theory by Thompson (1978) results in the strategies that are based on discount earning excess gains and rendering consequences not statistically relevant. It is hence concluded that anomalous profits may be obtained by implementing a discount based plan, though these gains are lesser than the operational expenditure. With all this study, British analysts and scholars have not yet fully made advances on the liaison connecting discounts and the performance by managers.
2.0.3 Open-end funds
Contrary to the closed fund, an open end fund is the fund which is administered by an investment company that acquires funds from its shareholders and mostly invests in a selection of assets in agreement with a set of affirmed objectives and goals. Open end funds obtain funds by the sale of investments owned by the funds to the general community just like all other company which can put on the market stock of itself to the general population. Mutual funds acquire money obtained from selling their shares and make use it to buy an assortment of varied investment vehicles which are; bonds, stocks and money market investments.
In reimbursement for the funds they provide to the funds on occasion of buying shares, the shareholders acquire equity arrangement in the fund and as a result they also receive position in the underlying securities. In a large number of open-end funds shareholders are allowed to put up for sale and offload their shares at a time of their choice even though the share price in and open end fund will vary upwards and downwards daily in accordance with the feat of the underlying securities possessed by the funds. Compensation of open end funds includes vast allocation and skilled management of funds. Open end funds put forward choice, convenience and liquidity, although charge costs and many times require a minimum outlay.
2.0.4 Comparison with open-ended funds
In the case of open end funds, the value is very much almost the same as the net asset value. Therefore, investing a certain amount of money into the fund gives the meaning of purchasing shares that claim to the value of the same amount of money in the underlying assets (excluding the sales costs). Though purchasing a closed-end fund selling at a premium might give the meaning of buying assets that are worth less for a higher amount of money.
There are a few advantages of closed-end funds over their open-ended counterparts which are financial. Closed End Funds do not in any way deal with the cost of making and recovering shares, they mostly keep minute less cash in their dockets, and are not majorly interested in the market variations to sustain their “performance record”. Therefore in the case where a stock depreciates irrationally, the closed-end fund might break up for a bargain, while open-ended funds may get to sales too early.
In connection to that, in case of a market alarm, investors may sell in large numbers. Confronted by a large number of sell orders and having the need to raise funds for recoveries, the manager of an open-ended fund may be obliged to pit on sale stocks he would in normal cases keep, and retain stocks he would rather put up for sale, because of liquidity concerns. Therefore it may result in a very huge burden to the investments of lower-quality or companies with very low demand due to their underperformance. However, an investor abandoning a closed-end fund must put it on sale to another buyer; hence the manager does not need to sell any of the stock underneath the fund. The Closed-end equity fund’s price will very much probably depreciate at a faster rate than the market (harshly punishing those who engage in sales in the time period of the turmoil), though it is very much anticipated to recover when the intrinsically sound stocks appreciate.
For the reason that a closed-end fund is trading in the market, it must get in line with the set obligations, for example filing reports with the listing authority and holding stockholder meetings every year. Therefore stockholders are able to learn more about their fund and get involved in shareholder activism, such as protesting in cases of poor management.
2.0.5 Managerial performance
The first research that showed the relationship between anticipated managerial performance and the discounts was done by Boudreaux (1973). In his study he purports that persistent divergence of the price from the net asset value is unswerving with the market proficiency and highly depends on anticipated portfolio changes. The price may be projected to be equal to, or swerve by an unchanging fraction of, its net asset value only when the markets believes that the manager of the fund would never change the possessions of the collection. Premiums together with discount give credible information about the ability of the manager to perform in relation to a dormant investment strategy. By the use of stock-picking or market-timing ability, the eminence of mutual fund management has been investigated extensively.
Studies show that open-end funds, more precisely the volatile growth funds, show some choosing aptitude, but no typical timing capability. This was defined and accredited by Wermers (1997) using some several ground states based on the behavior of the stocks possessed in their measure assortment. These characteristics are book to market, market capitalization and prior year characteristics. Bello and Janjigian study the domestic equity open-end funds and account for the affirmative and significant market-timing and security selection abilities. Other studies show that standard undergraduate institution SAT score and age may forecast the gains. This hence supports the perpetration that a number of managers and administrators may simply be better than others and this somehow influences the rate of discounts on the closed end equity funds stock markets.
From the study by Gruber in 1996, it is evident that investors may be able to recognize better-quality managers and hence undeviating incremental capital to the open-end funds that are very well managed. In the cases where finer funds are closed ended, it is evident that discounts are probable to show shareholder prospects of upcoming management performance. In this view, Gruber gives a proposal that funds may trade at a lesser discount or in some cases a premium if the general market expects high-quality executive performance. Though the belief that discounts represent quality managerial skills of closed end funds, the present evidence gives a mystery because, discounts seem to be related to subsequent measures of performance pessimistically. The hard task of finding a connection linking closed end fund discounts and the management performance highly accounts for reasons why very minimal researches have paid attention to management performance. These leaves the notion that either the interrelation between the subsequent performance and discounts is not present or there is need to adopt more complex methods of analysis in order to identify the connection if any. For instance, in cases where funds pay extra than the ‘fair’ value of the managerial proficiency, its share are supposed to trade with a discount and the reverse is true according to the managerial performance theory. By rectification of weaknesses and shortcomings of the traditional definition of fund performance, there is the ability to study effectively and extensively the diligence and certainty of closed-end fund performance.
Berk and Stanton (2007) depict that investors strategically acquire new issues of closed-end funds of acknowledged unchanging life on provision that the likely managerial eminence matches the cost of the life of the fund. In the case of seasoned funds, there is the presence of long term managerial contracts meaning cost may not depreciate, but competition may force them upwards if the acquired gains are excellent. This form of study gives support to the rise of managerial fees over time whilst skill remains passive. Veteran funds buy and sell at a discount on regular given the fact that the equilibrium of the skills and the cost is put into great consideration. In the United Kingdom, there is direct contradiction to this theory because the experienced funds tend to require lowest managerial fees. In the year 2006, Gemmil and Thomas try to guesstimate a cross-section deterioration for the ratios of expense of 186 conservative closed end funds in the United Kingdom on the grounds of a variety of fund and board behaviors. The results are that mutually fund age and size have very major negative statistics coefficients. This also showed that in the case where the fund age is doubled, it is purported to add 10% of the expense ratio.
The major view of every research study is that market gives excess more credibility to the managerial skill contribution in division and allocation of returns and gains in the funds and in turn comes up short of the role of luck due to investors’ failure to act rationally on the presented news and their biasness to the information. According to Jain and Wu (2000), mutual funds which boast of precedent good performance obtain more finances even when they have no evidence in superiority in performance in the period after advertisement. Elton et al. (1989) discover that fresh issues of overtly traded product funds yield profits and incomes far under the very high rates projected in the brochure. Ferguson and Leistikow (2004) squabble that a comparable occurrence applies to preliminary public offerings of green closed-end funds: a boss with extraordinarily high-quality up to date performance is chosen whose perceptible handiness outweighs the amount of cost incurred from his skills and services. Due to the fact that projected superior performance projected is a matter of chance rather than expertise, investors consequently revise downwards their approximation of the manager’s skill, and for the said reason veteran funds tend to trade in the discounts.
It is very much complex to check these explanations of the closed-end fund discount effectively. If the Managerial Skill supposition is true, however, in a variety of funds those with enhanced past performance ought to be on lower discounts. In relation to this proposition, a fund managed by an executive with outstanding skill would not be probable to fall to the same discount as other funds, hence the elevated supposed skill of the dummies (UK Smaller Companies sector tend to have higher discounts on their funds).
Researches of open-end funds have discovered important non-linearity in the connection between precedent performance and net inflows, with vivid effects at the higher end (Chevalier and Ellison, 1997; Sirri and Tufano, 1998). These findings strongly put forward that apparent managerial skill affects the discount, except they are not adequate to show that Managerial Skills explain discounts hence the puzzle of the discount on the closed end equity funds and their performance still stands.
A major significant attribute that sets closed-end funds separately from additional collective investment schemes is the disparity between the funds’ prices of the shares and the value of their fundamental investments. The funds are sold in the stock market in a discount or premium to Net Asset Values. Investors, for that reason, have two ways of gaining (or losing) money—from any increase or drop in the value of the causal stash and from any contraction or widening of the discount.
The account of the closed-end fund discount and premium shows much preference and liking to this type of market. So far no legitimate theory or school of thought has been put forward to explain the reason why the closed end discount funds most of the times trade in discounts or what affects the rate of the discounts. In the 1960s, the typical discount varied around
10percent. Conversely, by the middle of the 1970s, private, as well as institutional, investors had deferred concentration in such funds and the common discount in the United Kingdom widened to almost 50 percent. The bull market of the 1980s and the prologue of fresh investment aims, and tax-efficient wrappers and fundamental structure improved interest in closed-end funds. By the early 1990s, the middling discount (expressed as the logarithm of the unweighted mean ratio of share price to Net Asset Value) had lessened to around 5 percent. The behavior of U.S. equity home funds very much follows the model of the U.K. market. In the 1970s, U.S. funds used to trade, on middling, at a discount bigger than 20 percent. Consecutively, the discount progressively lessened, and these funds currently trade at about a 5 percent run of the mill discount. Nonetheless, while U.S. closed-end funds are characteristically a retail product, a high level of institutional possession exists in the United Kingdom. Two-thirds of shares held in U.K. closed-end funds, on middling, are owned by institutions, and for a majority of the funds, the institutional percentage is to a great extent greater than two-thirds as shown in (CLL 2001). A great deal of the academic explore on closed-end funds has focused on explaining the discount.
Due to the reason that closed-end equity funds are exchange-traded, their price may vary from that of their net asset values. In precision, fund shares most of the times tend to trade at what seems to be irrational prices due to the fact that secondary market prices are over and over again to a great extent out of line with fundamental portfolio values. A closed-end equity fund may also possess a premium at some times, and a discount at other times. For example, Morgan Stanley Eastern Europe Fund (RNE) on the New York Stock Exchange was trading at a premium of 39% in May 2006 and at a discount of 6% in October 2006 as shown in the New York stocks exchange records. These large deviations and variations are not at all easy to explain.
US closed-end stock funds most of the times possess share prices that are 5% or more under the Net Asset Value (NAV). That means that, if a fund has 10 million shares outstanding and if its portfolio is worth $200 million, then each share represents a claim on that NAV of $20 and you might expect that the market price of the fund’s shares on the secondary market would be around $20 (UK Financial Journal). Nevertheless that is not generally the case. The shares may trade for around $19 or even only $17. In the earlier case, the fund may be said to be “trading at a 5% discount to NAV.” In the latter case, the fund might be said to be “trading at a 15% discount to NAV.”
The existence of discounts is also a mysterious factor because in cases where the fund is trading at a discount, preferentially a well-capitalized investor could come along and buy all the fund’s shares at the discounted price to gain much control on the portfolio and force the fund managers to dissolve it at its (larger) market value (however in the real sense, liquidity worries make this not possible since the gap between the bid and the offer price will increase at a very high rate since lesser and lesser shares are accessible in the market). Benjamin Graham purported that an investor can rarely go wrong by acquiring such a fund with a 15% discount. Consequentially, the contradicting view is that the fund may not liquidate in the desired period of time and you may be forced to sell at an even shoddier discount; however, like any investment, these discounts may simply represent the assessment of the marketplace that the portfolios in the fund may lose value.
What is more perplexing is that, funds in most cases trade at a significant premium to Net Asset Value. Some of these premiums are extreme, with some premiums of quite a lot of hundred percent having been seen many times repeatedly. The reason as to why any person may be willing to pay three times the price for each share in a fund whose investments value per share is only a third of the money spent is still mysterious, although irrational exuberance has been cited as the reason. One theory is that if the fund has a strong track record of performance, the investors may hypothesize that the great excellent performance is due to high quality investment choices by the fund managers and that the fund managers will engage in the making on excellent profitable and prosperous choices in the projections. Therefore the premium represents the ability to immediately participate in the profits of the fund manager’s decisions.
Though there are numerous strong opinions, the conclusion and decision about this case scenario is yet to be made. It is easier to understand in cases where the Closed-end Equity Fund has the ability to pick and choose assets and arbitrageurs are not able to make up their mind on the specific assets till months later, though some funds are obliged to imitate a constant index and still trade at a discount.
2.0.7 Capital structure.
Closed-end funds are characterized by a fixed capitalization. The depicted form of structural layout makes it easier for the executive manager to commit in the fund in long term basis. In contradiction, open-end funds are characterized by the continual sale and emancipation of their units at or near Net Asset Value, and this at the appeal of any unit holder. For that reason, open-end funds have a capricious number of shares in issue.
Closed-end funds offer a large diversity of financial instruments, and their fund executives recurrently formulate new-fangled ways of giving outlay revelation. Dissimilar classes of venture are now on hand. In the United Kingdom, often they take account of run of the mill shares, highly leveraged shares (ordinary stockpile in a company with a wrap up date that is premeditated to give stockholders a highly leveraged profit in terms of both principal and income), income shares (securities that are at liberty to the superfluous income after expenses and subsequent to the income prerequisite of any preceding charge has been achieved), principal shares (securities that are allowed to the extra assets on wrap up after repayment of other share classes), zero dividend predilection shares (securities with a predestined pace of principal augmentation), stepped favorite shares (securities with a preset growth in both earnings and capital), warrants, and convertibles.
Even though not many of the U.S. closed-end funds usually take on any influence, United Kingdom closed-end funds additional recurrently make use of leverage by use of their own capital structures. The risk of highly leveraged shares is superior, on the other hand, for the reason that borrowing boosts Net Assets Value in growing markets but undermines them when markets plummet. For protection of the shareholders’ interests, there are precincts on the amount of capital that a company may have a loan of, but the preponderance of funds function with little levels of leverage, and preceding to 2001, the confines in leverage had on the odd occasion been reached. In disparity, open-end funds are by and large proscribed against acquisition of loans, which implies that unit holders’ benefit show a discrepancy directly with the value of their balanced component of the fund. The tendency by the discount to have leverage rises the fundamental holdings of the closed end equity fund.
In disparity, U.K. closed-end funds are not even a little bit permitted to dispense capital returns but must hold on to them for reinvestment. This capital gains tax on closed-end funds was abridged to 10 percent in 1977 and removed completely in 1980. For that reason, closed-end fund executives can turn over their portfolios without experiencing any capital gains tax legal responsibility. U.K. closed-end funds are not able to keep hold of more than 15 percent of dividends acquired. If the dividend they are able to hand out to their shareholders is inferior than the most wanted level, they are disallowed from putting on sale the fraction of their worth to boost the dividend disbursement.
The costs connected with acquisition of closed-end funds shares are in general inferior to those for open-end funds. Executives of the open-end funds set a preliminary charge of about 5 percent when units are put on sale. The bid-offer stretch, conversely, is time and again bigger than the first charge. In the United Kingdom, the computation is rigorously proscribed by the Department of Trade and Industry and, in theory, can set out as soaring as 12 percent. In disparity, closed-end funds have no preliminary organization indict when shares are bought, and the bid-offer spread is on the whole a propos 2 percent. The trade expenses drawn in buying or selling in the course of the investment trust executive company can be as low as 0.2 percent, while a full-service agent normally charges 1.65 percent.
Taking into consideration the executive costs and bid-offer spread as a whole, the cost coupled with buying and selling closed-end fund shares can be noticeably lower than 4 percent of the initial outlay and will never soar above 8 percent. With open-end funds, the corresponding costs can be as high as 13 percent.
From the study by Malkiel (1995), good performance may give rise to a management obtaining a ‘premium rating’. Adams and Venmore-Rowland also purport that the market capitalization, and hence the discount, is affected the market’s insight of the capitalist capability of the company’s administration. It is not an easy task to deliberate this form of factor but Malkiel (1995) gives the notion that some measure of achieved profits may be in some case used as a proxy variable. Another way of remunerating and analyzing manager skills and reputation is the measurement and analysis of performance bonus. This results in a contradiction of the theory that good managers tend to be expensive.
2.1.0 Management Contract & Fees:
The investment manager is at liberty to be given a management fee from the Company in respect of each class of Shares equal to a certain percentage in each and every year of total net assets attributable to such class of Shares, which is paid at the end of every month. The management fee that is charged in respect to a certain or particular set of shares is allocated to that same class of the shares. A performance fee is also payable to the Manager if in the end of the financial year the Total Net Asset value is greater than the one projected and anticipated in the end of latest preceding financial year in respect of which a performance fee was paid, or the Listing Date. The performance fee accrues monthly and is paid to the Investment Manager in arrears as at the end of the relevant financial year (AIDA Investment Company).
2.1.1 Premiums/discounts, closed-end fund returns, and NAV returns
According to Lee et al. (1991), when closed-end funds buy and sell at a discount (premium) they must suggest a higher (lower) gain to recompense investors. It should be renowned here that there is largely the estimation of closed-end fund premiums rather than discounts, as is the case in Lee et al. (1991) and Elton et al. (1998), to ensure that there is the ability to obtain a positive sentiment index. It is a fact that the making of the sentiment index in this paper is identical to the earlier studies. This means that, when the index increases or decreases, it indicates investor optimism or pessimism respectively.
2.1.2 Portfolio Composition
There are no limitations on holding illiquid stocks. Nevertheless, funds are obligatory to hold at least 25 percent of their net asset value in stocks in order to be let them off from capital gains tax. It is projected that the funds that grasp more stocks will sell at a larger discount due to the fact that common stocks are by far the riskiest and the hardest to hedge among the assets invested in by closed-end funds. Therefore, discounts are anticipated to increase as a fund appreciates its investment in common stocks. Despite the fact that Grullon and Wang (2001) fail to give credible statistically significant relationship between this variable and the discounts on the U.S. equity funds, the stock holdings of UK funds might be an significant factor in explaining the discount due to the stock market inefficiencies.
In relation to the investor sentiment hypothesis, small stocks are majorly held by small investors and for this reason; they are disrupted more by investor sentiment. If closed-end funds also invest in small stocks, they will most probably come into collision with investor sentiment risk. To account for this effect, the share of stock holdings invested in the smallest three size deciles portfolios will be put into consideration in the empirical model. It is anticipated that as the small stock holdings of funds increase, their discount will increase as well.
Diversification is another worth studying elucidation for the discounts in the closed end equity funds’ portfolio (Boudreaux, 1977). This explanation is exempted for the U.S. closed end funds due to the reason that individual investors can easily attain the diversification benefits by themselves. On the other hand, diversification might be a credible elucidation for discounts on UK closed-end equity funds because stock investment is relatively new, diversification is expensive, and principles of modern portfolio management are not utilized by UK institutional investors (Yüce, Önder and Mugan, 1999). For this reason, investors could be willing to pay a higher price for a well-diversified portfolio put up by a closed-end fund. This results in the notion that, the more diversified a fund’s portfolio, the smaller the expected discount.
Liquidity of assets invested in by funds might affect the value of funds’ shares. If a segment of the investments included in the portfolio of closed-end funds are not liquid, prices of these assets used in calculating their net asset value may not give a reliable representation of their true market values.
In addition to the liquidity of assets held in a portfolio of a fund, liquidity of the fund’s own shares might be an significant factor. Datar (2001) purports that discounts are realized when claims issued by funds are not as much of liquid as the assets included in their portfolios. With the help of many trading activity measures as proxies for liquidity, he puts forward empirical evidence strongly makings his claims credible enough. What is more, Boudreaux (1973) finds a significant relationship between trading volume of fund shares and the discounts on these funds. Hence, it is hypothesized that funds with more liquidity (measured by the turnover ratio) will have lesser discounts, controlling for the size of the funds.
According to Grullon and Wang (2001), funds with large block holdings are anticipated to have higher discounts. On the other hand, they fail to report significant relationship. They purport that as the fund is dispersedly owned by many shareholders, the discount is expected to be lower; but as the holdings of the largest shareholders increase, the discount is expected to rise significantly. If ownership is not dispersed, or if there are few large shareholders, they might use the funds for their own purposes and their actions may not be controlled by the minority shareholders that have limited rights in emerging markets like the London stock exchange Malkiel (1977). For example, on average 7.7 percent of the U.S. closed end equity fund shares are held by block holders (Grullon and Wang, 2001).
Even though the size of the fund is one of the prospective explanatory variables raised by the financial industry, Malkiel (1995) does not find a credible connection interlinking the size of the discount and the size of the fund. Nevertheless, this might be a valid explanation for discounts in an emerging market where investors may not be well-informed about the operations of a company (Malkiel 1995). Additionally, large funds might be able to have minimal managerial, administrative and transaction costs because of economies of scale in their operations. Therefore, the discount is expected to be lower for larger closed end funds.
2.1.6 Past Performance
Based on the performance of the fund earlier, investors may be willing to pay a premium if they think that the good performance will carry on into the future. When past performance is used as a proxy for future performance, it is anticipated that the higher the return on a fund based on its net asset value, the lesser will be the size of the discount.
2.1.7 Market Condition:
The wide-ranging performance of the market might affect the size of the discounts also. If the investor sentiment theory holds, as the market goes up, people will be optimistic about the market resulting in a decline in discount. On the other hand, if it is a bear market, the pessimism will increase in the market, resulting in an augment in the bulk of the discount.
Chapter 3: Methodology
The closing prices of stocks and market indexes are to be taken mainly from the web page of London Stock Exchange. Financial newspaper, a list of academic article, annual and quarterly reports, fund managers report, AMC?s review and the stock market data will be some of the sources from where evidence and data will be achieved for this dissertation.
In this dissertation the performance of the mutual funds are being examined by employing both the definitions of risks, the standard deviation of risk and beta.
In array to settle on the risk-adjusted returns of asset portfolios, several reputed authors have worked from the 1960s to build up amalgamated performance indices to assess a folder by comparing substitute portfolios within a meticulous risk class. The most significant and extensively used procedures of performance are:
The Sharpe Measure
The Treynor Measure
3.0.1 Performance Measures of Mutual Funds
Mutual Fund industry today, with a lot of players and a larger number of schemes, is one of the most favored investment avenues in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, with a surfeit of schemes to select from, the retail investor is faced with tribulations in choosing funds. Factors like the outlay strategy and executive style are qualitative, though the funds record is a vital indicator also. Despite the fact that precedent performance independently cannot be analytical of projected performance, it is, candidly, the only quantitative way to evaluate how excellent a fund is currently. For that reason, there is a requirement to appropriately evaluate the precedent performance of diverse joint funds.
Worldwide, excellent mutual fund companies above are rated by their AMCs and this reputation is unswervingly connected to their advanced strategies of selection of stock. For mutual funds to thrive, AMCs must be held responsible for their strategies in stock selection. In other words, there have got to be some performance indicator that will make known the excellence of stock assortment of an assortment of AMCs.
Profits and gains unaccompanied should not be well thought-out as the foundation of measurement of the performance of a mutual fund schemes, it ought to also take account of the risk taken by the fund director for the reason that diverse funds will have diverse levels of peril connected to them. Risk linked with a fund, in a broad-spectrum, can be definite as unpredictability or fluctuations in the proceeds produced generated by it. The higher the fluctuations in the profits of a fund for the duration of a given time period, advanced will be the hazard connected with it. These fluctuations in the incomes generated by a fund are consequential of two guiding parameters. To start with, common market fluctuations, which have an effect on each and every one of the securities, present in the market, known as market risk or systematic risk and second, fluctuations as a result of precise securities available in the portfolio of the fund, called random risk. The Total Risk of a given fund is sum of these two and is calculated in terms of standard deviation of incomes of the fund. Systematic risk, on the other hand, is deliberated in terms of Beta, which represents fluctuations in the Net Asset Value of the fund vis-ï¿½-vis market. The further receptive the Net Asset Value of a mutual fund is to the fluctuations in the marketplace; elevated will be its beta. Beta is deliberated by relating the incomes on a mutual fund with the profits in the marketplace. Despite the fact that random risk can be varied all the way through investments in a figure of instruments, methodical peril cannot. By making use of the risk return affiliation, there is the trial to evaluate the aggressive force of the mutual funds vis-ï¿½-vis one another in an improved way.
So that there is precise determination of the risk-adjusted returns of investment portfolios, a number of renowned authors have worked from the 1960s to build up amalgamated performance indices to appraise a folder by comparing different portfolios within a meticulous risk class. The mainly significant and extensively used measures of performance are:
The Treynor Measure
The Sharpe Measure
3.0.2 The Treynor Measure
Developed by Jack Treynor, this one studies and deliberates funds on the basis of Treynor’s Index. This Index is a proportion of profit produced by the fund over and above risk free rate of return (in most cases taken to be the return on securities backed by the government, as there is no credit danger associated), in the course of a known era and systematic risk associated with it (beta). Symbolically, it can be represented as:
Treynor’s Index (Ti) = (Ri – Rf)/Bi.
Where, Ri represents return on fund, Rf is risk free rate of return and Bi is beta of the fund.
All risk-averse investors would like to get the most out of this value. Despite the fact that a high and positive Treynor’s Index shows a better risk-adjusted performance of a fund, a stumpy and negative Treynor’s Index is an indication of inauspicious performance.
3.0.3 The Sharpe Measure
In this model, performance of a fund is deliberated on the basis of Sharpe Ratio, which is the one of profits realized by the fund over and above risk free rate of return and the total risk connected to it. According to Sharpe, it is the whole peril of the fund that the investors are apprehensive about. As a result, the model evaluates funds on the basis of incentive per unit of total risk. Symbolically, it is written as:
Sharpe Index (Si) = (Ri – Rf)/Si
Where, Si is standard deviation of the fund.
Whilst a towering and positive Sharpe Ratio shows a better risk-adjusted performance of a fund, a low and negative Sharpe Ratio is a sign of adverse performance.
3.0.4 Comparison of Sharpe and Treynor
Sharpe and Treynor measures are comparable in some way, since they both split the peril premium by a numerical peril measure. The entirety peril is suitable when calculating the risk return relationship for well-spread portfolios. But, the systematic risk is the pertinent measure of risk on calculating fewer than fully diversified portfolios or entity stocks. For a well-spread portfolio the entirety risk is equivalent to logical risk. Rankings based on total risk (Sharpe measure) and systematic risk (Treynor measure) ought to be impossible to tell apart for a well-spread portfolio, as the whole risk is abridged to logical risk. For that reason, an inadequately spread fund that positions higher on Treynor measure, compared with another fund that is highly spread, will grade lower on Sharpe Measure.
3.0.5 Jenson Model
Jenson’s model projects an additional risk attuned performance measure. This measure was put forward by Michael Jenson and is every so often referred to as the Differential Return Method. It involves assessment of the proceeds that the fund has emitted versus the returns in reality anticipated out of the fund given the level of its systematic risk. The superfluous between the two returns is called Alpha, which events the performance of a fund compared with the authentic profits over the period. Required income of a fund at a known height of risk (Bi) can be calculated as:
Ri = Rf + Bi (Rm – Rf)
Where, Rm is average market return during the given period. On calculating it, alpha can be acquired by subtracting requisite gain from the real gain of the fund.
Advanced alpha means better performance of the fund and vice versa. Restraint of this model is that it puts into account only systematic risk not the whole risk linked with the fund and a run of the mill investor cannot alleviate unsystematic risk, as his acquaintance of marketplace is primordial.
3.0.6 Fama Model
The Eugene Fama model is a conservatory of Jenson model. This model puts into comparison the performance, calculated in terms of profits, of a fund with the requisite gain proportionate with the entirety risk related with it. The disparity amid these two is taken as a measure of the performance of the fund and is called ‘net selectivity’.
The net selectivity is a clear indication of the skill of selecting stock by the fund manager, as it is the surplus gain over and above the return essential to reimburse for the entirety risk in use by the fund manager. Advanced value of which shows that fund manager has gained profits well on top of the return proportionate with the height of risk taken by the manager.
Required return can be calculated as: Ri = Rf + Si/Sm*(Rm – Rf)
Where, Sm is standard deviation of market returns. The ‘net selectivity’ is then acquired by subtracting this requisite gain from the authentic return of the fund.
Amongst the above performance measures, two models to be precise, Treynor measure and Jenson model use systematic risk based on the principle that the unsystematic risk is diversifiable. These models are appropriate for big investors like institutional investors with elevated risk taking capacities as they do not countenance scarcity of funds and can endow in a figure of options to weaken a number of risks. For them, a portfolio can be extended crossways a number of stocks and sectors. On the other hand, Sharpe measure and Fama model that put into account the whole risk linked with fund are fitting for diminutive investors, as the run of the mill investor does not have the indispensable skill and resources to broaden the horizons. What is more, the assortment of the fund on the foundation of greater stock assortment aptitude of the fund director will also help in protection of the capital invested to a huge degree. The venture in funds that have resulted in huge amounts of profits at elevated levels of risks leaves the money all the more lying on its front to risks of all kinds that may go beyond the personal investors’ risk enthusiasm.
In the case of the exploration of closed end equity funds in the United Kingdom in the past five years and the discounts associated with them, the earlier three measures are put into great use. The London stock exchange is immensely used with variations, deviations and fluctuations of the discount being the main areas of the study.
3.0.7 Determinants of Discounts on Closed-end Funds
By use of the help of the Generalized Method of Moment (GMM) there is estimation of the models of any kind that put into account the discounts on closed-end funds. The replica in this paper explains the variation in monthly and quarterly discounts. Agency cost, diversification, liquidity of the fund, market conditions, and past performance seem to be genuine and credible reasons for the existence of discounts on United Kingdom closed-end funds.
From the research it is discovered that if the proxy for agency cost, general administrative expenses, increases, discount on UK closed end equity funds also increases significantly in all models. This finding gives support to the agency cost explanation of discounts. What is more, as the turnover rate of fund appreciates the size of the discount declines. For this reason, the frequently traded funds seem to be correctly valued in the market. On the other hand, there is no proof of credible crash of the number of industries invested in, although the coefficient is discovered to be a negation. In the crisis period, the discount size is found to be higher controlling for the other characteristics of the funds when the discounts are calculated on a monthly basis.
All of the stocks traded in the London Stocks Exchange are divided into ten deciles portfolios in the groups of their market capitalization annually. Then, the proportion of fund’s assets invested in the smallest 3 and 5 size deciles portfolios is calculated.
Conversely, coefficient of the crisis dummy variable is not statistically significant. As the profit on the market portfolio appreciates, it is discovered that the size of the discount orates to a very large extent. This can be very much effectively accounted for by investor sentiment.
An additional factor affecting the discounts is the performance of the fund. Investors might be using past performance, that is, lagged return on Net Asset Value, as a pointer of prospect performance.
As net asset value profit in the preceding interlude increases, the size of the discount declines indicating that the prices of these funds increase significantly. As anticipated, the coefficient on BANK variable is established to be negative in both quarterly and monthly estimations. Nonetheless, none of the bank coefficients are noteworthy. Therefore, the variation in the size of discount between bank and non-bank affiliated funds can be accredited to the other characteristics of funds, for example their size, portfolio characteristics, turnover rate.
In the U.K.-listed closed-end funds Gemmill and Thomas (2006) discover that discounts are adversely affected from the corporate governance measures. Distinct from the projections, share of stock holdings in fund portfolios do not have noteworthy influence on the size of discount.
Using monthly observations, it is practical that, as the funds increase their holding of the smallest stocks, their discount increases significantly as projected by the investor sentiment hypothesis controlling for net asset value and other fund characteristics. This discovery can be accounted for by the risk and illiquidity of these stocks. An additional diversification measure, the number of securities held in the portfolio, is also seen to be a major factor explaining the discount on closed-end equity funds. The results show that, as funds augment the number of securities in their portfolios, the discount turns downwards significantly, supporting the diversification hypothesis.
Discounts on all funds are unconstructively interrelated with the profit on the market supporting investment sentiment hypothesis. If diminutive investors are sanguine about the market, they might be investing in closed-end funds and as a result, the size of the discount declines.
Chapter 4: Findings and analysis
4.0.1 Data sources
This research is based on the data and statistics from different sources like the London stock exchange spanning the duration between January 2006 and May 2011. The sample consists of a majority of the closed-end funds listed in the London Stock Exchange since January 2006. Regardless of the fact that most closed-end funds went public before, the sample depicted in this paper is restricted to the post-January 2006 period. Monthly closed-end fund net asset values are obtained from the Association of Britain Institutional Investors. All fund and stock profits taken into consideration in this research paper are simple average monthly returns, including of dividends. The portfolio inclusions of every fund were obtained from the quarterly financial statements of the funds.
4.0.2 Portfolio samples
In this study, much research is directed to the proposition that the investor sentiment (which is, the index of changes in the value weighted index of premium/discount) enters the income generating procedure for a set of unreceptive portfolios and an extra size-based portfolios, active portfolios, industrial stocks and one utility stock. Once more divergent to the investor sentiment theory, when the bear market begun after 1999, new non-listed funds were established.The LARGE, MEDIUM and SMALL (size-based) stand for equally-weighted portfolios. These portfolios were founded on the basis of ranking industrial and utility stocks at the end of every year in downward order based on their market capitalization. Subsequently, evenly weighted monthly profits are anticipated for each of these portfolios for the model era.
4.0.3 Index construction and description of variables
With the use of Lee et al. (1991) study, a sample of the investor sentiment index can be constructed making use of a value weighted index of premiums as follows:
VWPRt ¼Xni¼1wiPremitXni¼1VWPRt ¼Xni¼1wiPremit ð1Þ
NAVit¼Net Asset Value of fund i at end of month t.
Premit ¼SPit _ NAVitNAVit _ 100 ð2Þ
SPit¼Stock Price of fund i at the end of month t
n¼the number of funds with available Premit
In adding up, we computed the variations in the value-weighted index of monthly premiums:
VWPRt = VWPRt –VWPRt-1.
4.0.4 Discounts and Their Determinants in the UK markets
Monthly and quaternary closed-end equity fund prices in conjunction to their net asset values are studied and analyzed for the period of five years between 2006 and early 2011. The percentage discount for a fund i in a given month t,
DISCit, is calculated as,
100 ⎥⎦⎢⎣⎡ −=itit itit NAVNAV SPDISC ,
where NAVit is the market value of a fund i’s porfolio10 at the end of the week t and Spit represents the stock price of fund i at the end of week t. A positive DISCit value means a discount and a negative number indicates a premium.
With the use of the factors discussed in the literature explaining the discount and its regulation in the United Kingdom, undiscovered capital gains cannot be used as an explanation for the presence of discounts in UK since closed-end funds are exempt from tax payments. Additionally, there is not much disparity among the funds in terms of their dividend payout policy. Finally, the investor sentiment hypothesis only to some extent explains the discounts on closed-end funds (Güner and Önder, 2007). For that reason, the remaining explanations of discounts can be put into the categories here below; portfolio composition, diversification, liquidity, agency cost, ownership structure, size of the fund, past performance, and market condition. These different categories and groups have been discussed in the course of this research paper and their effect on the discounts present in the closed-end equity funds well explained though they do not independently affect the discount majorly.
This paper entails monthly closed-end fund data and financial statements prepared quarterly. For that reason, there is no fund operating expenses on a monthly basis. As a result, what is called as net asset value this paper is in point of fact market value of closed end fund’s portfolios on a per share basis. In view of the fact that this research deals with monthly data, segregation of fund operating expenses in calculating the net asset value of a fund is not probable to have a huge impact on the results obtained. In addition, discounts reported in this paper are anticipated to be higher than the actual discounts on funds.
4.0.5 Empirical Model
The following regression model is estimated in analyzing the factors explaining the discounts on United Kingdom closed-end funds:
DISCit = f(Portfolio Composition, Diversification, Liquidity, Agency cost, Ownership
Structure, Size, Past Performance, Market Condition)
Portfolio Composition is measured by the use of two variables: SHOLD measures the percentage of the portfolio invested in stocks and S3DECILE is the share of NAV invested in stocks from the smallest three deciles portfolios. As the stock holding of the portfolio invested in stocks from the smallest three size deciles portfolios increases, the discount of the fund is expected to increase (Malkiel 1995). Due to the fact that funds report their stocks holdings on a monthly basis, S3DECILE is available on a monthly basis.
Diversification is measured by two variables given the available data: the number of different sectors a fund’s portfolio is invested in (NINDUSTRY) and the number of different stocks held in a portfolio of a fund (NSTOCKS). For the reason that funds are permitted to invest in a variety of industries, they can diversify their portfolio by investing in stocks from different industries and by investing in different stocks. As a fund’s diversification increases because of either variable, the discount is anticipated to decline.
Liquidity of the shares of the fund is measured by the turnover rate (TURNOVER). It is termed as the ratio of trading volume of a fund’s shares to its number of shares outstanding.
However, there is no information about the payments made to portfolio managers. As a result, the natural logarithm of the fund’s administrative expenses, LOGADMEXP, is used as a proxy for agency cost. Administrative expenses are in nominal terms and they are increasing throughout our sample period partly because of high inflation rate experienced in the country. To account for changes in administrative expenses due to inflation, these expenses are deflated by inflation.
Ownership structure is studied comprehensively and effectively with the use of by two variables. BANK is an pointer variable taking a value of 1 if a fund is affiliated with a commercial bank and 0 otherwise. PUBLIC, measures the ownership concentration of the fund. This is the characteristic segment of the equity of the fund held by public.
The logarithm of the total Net Asset Value of the fund (LOGNAV) is used to control for the size of the fund.
The past performance is measured by the lagged return on the NAV of the fund (LRNAV).
The market is proxy by the return on the LSE-100 index (RMARKET). To ensure that autocorrelation in error terms is removed, the lagged discount, DISCOUNTt-1, is also included in the replica.
Because the names of stocks built-in in the portfolio are reported on a monthly basis, the following model is estimated using monthly data:
DISCOUNTt = f(SHOLDt, LOGADMEXPt, BANKt, PUBLICt, LOGNAVt, TURNOVERt,
NINDUSTRYt, CRISISt, RMARKETt, RLNAVt, DISCOUNTt-1) (1)
The monthly model includes variables about a fund’s stock holdings in addition to the quarterly variables:
DISCOUNTt = f(SHOLDt, LOGADMEXPt, BANKt, PUBLICt, LOGNAVt, RLNAVt,
TURNOVERt, S3DECILEt, NSTOCKt, CRISISt, RMARKETt, DISCOUNTt-1) (2)
Because banks played an crucial role in the expansion of the stock market and the fund industry, the models specified in equations (1) and (2) are also estimated separately for bank affiliated and non-bank affiliated funds. These models help us to examine whether the impacts of these factors on the size of discounts change with bank ownership. In estimating all of these models, the General Method of Moments (GMM) model is used because of heteroscedasticity and non-normal distribution of discounts.
4.0.6 Empirical Tests
To start with, we check if the allotment of the discount shows proof of being squeezed asymmetrically, steadfast with the existence of higher and inferior limits. If censoring is present, there is expectancy to find:
(i) the distribution being skewed to the right, because of the asymmetry; and
(ii) the tails of the distribution are cut off, giving rise to reduced kurtosis relative to the distributions for prices and net-asset values.
To avoid any fresh-issue bias, the model is restricted to the 20 oldest funds from the sample of the numerous funds. Combining skewness and kurtosis, discount spreads show important non-normality (according to the Jarque-Bera test at the five percent significance level)
There is thus some substantiation that the upper and lower arbitrage limits reshape the discount distribution. Simultaneously, censoring has the expedient effect of making the circulation of the discount more typical than it would or else be.
We estimate a cross-section regression of the form:
i i i
i i i i i
fDIV g SIZE error
DISCOUNT a bEXPENSE cBETADISC d AGE eRESERR
+ + +
= + + + + log ( )
log( ) where the discount (DISCOUNT), expense ratio (EXPENSE), and dividend yield
(DIV) are measured as averages over the five years, BETADISC is the individual fund sensitivity to the value-weighted average discount and represents a systematic noise factor, age (AGE) is measured in years, RESERR is the residual error from a replicating regression of fund net-asset-value returns on market indices, and SIZE is the average market value of a fund over the sample period. The subscript i denotes company. From the theory, we expect to find positive values for coefficients b (expenses), c (noise factor), d (log age), and e (replication risk); negative values are expected for f (dividend yield) and g (log size).
The data are averaged over the five years available, rather than considered year-by-year, because the aim is to explain differences in long-run average discounts across funds rather than short-run variation.
The results point to the fact that all of the variables are imporatnt at the one percent level, apart from size which is significant at the five percent level. On the other hand, one of these variables has an unanticipated sign: Funds which bear more systematic noise risk (BETADISC) have considerably lesser (rather than superior) discounts. Due to the reason that the noise-factor variable is measured with error, the analysis is repeated using Fama-McBeth regressions on data grouped into classes by size of noise factor.
The result is unchanged. This leads h view of LST that noise trading is a priced factor which causes the discount.
The considerably negative sign on the noise factor is a mystery, for it seems unlikely that investors actively look for exposure to funds with more non-diversifiable discount-risk.
The optimistic connection of discount to duplication peril is unswerving with the theory that the discount is bigger if the upper arbitrage vault is higher and it confirms preceding U.S. and U.K. empirical results (Pontiff (1996) and Dimson and Minio-Kozerski (1998)). The significance of size has been eminent in many other studies. The result on dividend yield is steady with Pontiff.
The bombshell is that bigger operating expenses are not considerably related with a larger discount, but this seems to be due to the presence of co linearity among the illustrative variables. Operating costs are big for funds which are green, difficult to imitate and minute. The uncomplicated correspondence of expense ratios with each of these variables exceeds 0.5 in complete value. By difference the easy connection of the discount with other variables exceeds 0.12 in absolute value with only one other variable, age of fund. A compound regression confirms the noteworthy connection of each of these variables to expenses. Thus it is clear that three variables which are most strongly connected to the size of the discount _ log of age, duplication risk, and log of size _ are also strongly related to the cost ratio.
The explanation why managing expenses are not unswervingly linked to the discount in the cross-section is owed to fresh funds. These are put up and running in ‘hot periods’ when there are negative discounts and this provides executives with the chance to charge high expenses. The positive sentiment towards new funds at the time hides the potentially negative impact of their elevated expenses. If a thrifty deterioration is run of the discount as a function of expense ratio and age of fund only, the expense ratio is considerably related to the discount at the 1 percent level.
This leads to the wrapping up that there is no credible evidence of hold up for the proposition that noise-trading is a valued factor which is rewarded by the discount. But it is discovered that the discount on a closed end equity fund is dependant principally on how expensive it is to arbitrage. Funds that are minute, hard to duplicate, and have low dividend yields have big discounts. Complexity of duplication increases the discount due to the fact that it elevates the upper arbitrage vault, while leaving the lower limit unchanged. Very huge expenses and costs in terms of management also result in a larger discount, even though this relationship is hidden by the co linearity of expenses with age of fund and cost of arbitrage.
Returns as at May 31, 2011
|2 Year Avg
|3 Year Avg
|4 Year Avg
|5 Year Avg
|10 Year Avg
|15 Year Avg
|20 Year Avg
|3 year risk
|3 year beta
*MSCI World ($ Cdn)
4.0.7 Investor Sentiment and the Discount in Time Series
126.96.36.199Investor Sentiment and the Sector Discount
With already the consideration of the reason why a long-term discount is present, the center of attention now shifts to give a valuable explanation as to why the discount deviates over time. We conjecture that the discounts on closed-end funds are shifted from symmetry by flows of funds, which replicate the “sentiment” of diminutive investors rather than rudiments. This proposition is contentious. For example, Warther (1995, pp. 232 to 233, italics added) notes: “The popular press regularly quotes analysts who declare that mutual fund flows are the new indicator of investor sentiment. It is therefore curious that fund flows have no discernible relation to closed-end fund discounts, which are another often-cited measure of investor sentiment”.
Here the study carried out in this paper puts into consideration the monthly time series between January 2006 and May 2011 for the closed-end funds in our model. Data are available (from the trade organization representing managers) on retail-investor flows into/out-of open-end funds by investment sector. These closed-end funds are subjected into groups of every sector and their weighted mean discount for each and every sector is seen as a variable to be explained.
There is strong and huge evidence suggesting a presence of a very well-built negative impact of retail flows on the discount. We put forward that the discount and retail flows are calculated simultaneously. Despite the fact that retail flows may affect the discount, it may also be the case that a little (or negative) discount attracts flows. We consequently carry on by testing if there is a co integrating connection amidst the level of discount and retail-investor flows, of the general form:
jt jt jt DISCOUNT = a + bFLOW +V
where DISCOUNT is the sector discount, FLOW is the monthly retail inflow/outflow to open-end funds in the same sector (standardized by the total market value at the beginning of each month of open-end funds investing in that sector), V is a disturbance term, subscript j denotes sector, and subscript t denotes month. The equation is a symmetry (long-run) linkage which is anticipated with short-run (monthly) data. Incomplete autocorrelations and Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests corroborate that flows and discounts cannot be eminent from the processes for each of the segments. A test for co integration is carried out using the Jenson model, which is a development of the Johansen (1995) procedure. The likelihood ratio test rejects the hypothesis of no co integration at the one percent level for all sectors. The coefficients of the co integrating equation are anticipated for each of the sectors and also a two equation Vector Error Correction (VEC) model, putting into use maximum likelihood methods. The Treynor measure is also tested prove the existence of the discounts on the closed end equity funds.
The variation in interest rates is at a standstill and introduced as an exogenous variable.
Jointly with the substantiation on the existence of co integration, this is the most significant result of the time-series analysis. In distinction to the statement by Warther (1995), there is the discovery that retail-investment flows in the U.K. have a clearly discernible relationship to closed end- fund discounts.
There are two results of the hypothesis that are very noteworthy. To start with, the coefficient on alter in interest rate is not important in any equation, which is steady with all previous U.S. and U.K. studies. Second, for all segments the correction of errors comes via the coefficient g in the equations and not via d. This means that, it appears that the modification to symmetry comes at the start from an alteration to flows rather than an adjustment to the discount. To enhance the measurement of the velocity of the modification, a distress was administered to flows and its force on the level of discount imputed. This is unswerving with retail investors becoming very much interested in specific sector and huge inflows taking place, driving up the premium on existing closed-end funds meaning that the discount becomes extinct in some cases and in other cases it is driven downwards. The countervailing retort in the form of fresh issues takes only a month or two.
In summing up, the co integration analysis indicates a highly significant connection between retail-investor flows and closed-end-fund discounts. This is a major and credible evidence which favors the hypothesis and purports that retail-investor sentiment is accountable for activities of the discount.
4.0.8 Long-run Impact of Small-investor Holdings on the Discount
It is not easy to explain why the typical discount moves so much over periods of a number of years, for example, from 22 percent in January 1986 to four percent in January 1994.
A superficial assessment shows that there is an escalating tendency in the discount to the mid-1970s, followed by a long withdrawing inclination to the mid-1990s.
For the reason that these trends are tremendously long, the investigation of this research paper can only be evocative rather than decisive.
Consistent with other studies here-mentioned, there is the hypothesis that the discount depends on the flow of investment from miniature shareholders. To test the credibility of this proposition, there is the use of annual data on the fraction of all the shares held by retail investors in Foreign and Colonial Investment Trust from 1970 to 1999. Foreign and Colonial is the biggest U.K. closed-end fund over this period and delegate of the whole universe: Its monthly discount represents the average discount for all funds with a correlation of +0.94.
Throughout this period it is evident that the average of the closed end equity funds were trading at a premium which is a negative discount. The correlation is +0.83. This is the information obtained from other studies and analysis carried out before on the London Stocks Exchange market. If a linear connection amidst the two variables is assumed, when retail investors hold half of the shares, the discount is five percent; when retail investors trim down their holdings to one quarter of the shares, the discount rises to 25 percent.
This study is unswerving with the presence of variations in small-investor sentiment which do not fade or change for more than a few years, as retail investors’ build-up and condense their assets (of this representative closed-end fund). This gives the notion that sentiment may not only cause short-term swerves in discounts on entity funds, but also long-term variations in the average discount for all funds.
4.0.9 Data Sources
The data used in the analyses are obtained from two sources: the London Stocks Exchange market monthly bulletins and databases maintained by the London Stocks Exchange. Net asset values of closed-end funds on every end of the month, the number of shares outstanding at the funds’ initial public offerings, their holdings in major asset categories (stocks by sector, government securities by maturity, repurchase agreements and foreign exchange, etc), and individual securities included in their portfolios are acquired from the Monthly and quarterly Bulletins of the London Stocks Exchange market.
The end of the month closing prices of closed-end funds, the level of FTSE-100 composite index, and end-month closing prices of all the stocks listed on the London Stocks Exchange are obtained from the databases maintained by the London Stocks Exchange. Closing prices are adjusted for stock splits and stock dividends.
In the same way, the number of shares outstanding for each stock and closed-end fund is attuned for stock splits and stock dividends.
Splits are very much widespread and frequent for stocks listed on the London Stocks Exchange. In the process of working with the price and the net asset value data for the United Kingdom closed end equity funds, it was observed that some funds are slow to report the change in their number of shares outstanding after any form of split. Since the stock price is adjusted straight away after the split by the London Stock Exchange, this timing difference results in periods of artificially high discounts for closed-end funds. For that reason, in order to do away with the preconceived notion in our results with these “wrong reports”, net asset values of each fund are recalculated from total market value of their assortment holdings and their adjusted number of shares outstanding for the whole sample period. What is more, some funds adjust net asset value of their portfolios, with respect to their dividend payments before the ex-dividend day, resulting in artificially high premiums. Similar to the stock split adjustment, if incorrect adjustments are seen with the effect of payment of dividends, net asset values are checked and put into tact by adding dividend payments to the net asset value of the portfolio before the ex-dividend day.
Information and statistics on the number of different sectors and stocks in a fund’s portfolio are got hold of from the monthly reports of the closed end equity funds published in the London Stocks Exchange monthly bulletins.
The fraction of the fund shares held by the public is acquired from the databases maintained by the London Stocks Exchange. Ownership structure data and administrative expenses are obtained from the Annual Yearbooks of Companies published by the London Stocks Exchange. 4.1.0Empirical Findings
First, the distinctiveness of United Kingdom closed-end funds over the sample period are presented in this section. Then, the domino effect of the empirical analysis of the determinants of closed-end funds discounts is discussed. The estimates for bank and non-bank affiliated funds and for the crisis and non-crisis periods are also presented.
4.1.1 Characteristics of United Kingdom Closed-end Funds
The discount is the norm for United Kingdom closed end funds during the period between January 2006 and May 2011. Maintaining the price within a reasonable price range is a common explanation given for stock splits.
These adjustments did not consequence in any loss of data. Dividend payment and stock gash corrections are done for a minimal of the stocks listed in the London stocks exchange market. For that reason, they are not probable to sway the result of this study. The discounts rise and fall each and every month in the United Kingdom. The funds are traded at premiums over some periods in the time that this study explore focuses on. In particular the periods are just before the financial crises that led to the worldwide recession.
The discounts on bank-affiliated funds and funds established by other financial intermediaries or individuals illustrate some differences. Regardless of the fact that bank-affiliated funds a lot of times do business at a premium, funds operate at a premium in some periods, non-bank affiliated funds trade at a discount more or less all the time during our sample period. In broad-spectrum, the discount on non-bank affiliated funds is larger than that on bank-affiliated funds. After the crisis, the bank-affiliated funds were trading at a higher discount than the non-bank affiliated funds. The average value-weighted discount is more than 10 percent, which is more or less the same as the discount reported for the U.S. closed-end funds (Weiss, 1989; Lee, Shleifer and Thaler, 1991). Nevertheless, there are large fluctuations across funds in terms of middling discounts. The average discounts on individual funds during this period fluctuated a great deal. The figure here below shows performance of different funds over the period of an year in terms of the discounts associated with them.
Fund, owned by a bank, has the largest net asset value per share during the last five years in the UK closed end equity fund market. There is not a major deviation in the net asset values of the left behind closed end funds.
There is no chief requirement among the UK closed-end funds in the terms of application of assets and investments in definite industries. There is the notion that a majority of the funds prefer to invest in holding and investment companies, banks and stocks of companies.
Majorly, United Kingdom closed-end funds as well as bank and non-bank affiliated funds function with premiums and discounts which continues to be a mystery how the performance is interlinked with the discount aspect. The standard rate weighted discount is lower for bank-affiliated funds than the standard value-weighted discount for non-bank affiliated funds. The proposition of parity means a number of the fund distinctiveness for bank and non-bank affiliated funds are put into test using a t-statistic. There is the unearthing that there is a noteworthy disparity amid bank and non-bank affiliated funds in each of these characteristics except the number of industries invested in. These stocks are from the companies working in diverse industries on common. Even though bank and non-bank funds are analogous in terms of the number of sectors that they invest in, non-bank funds endow further in the smallest stocks in comparison to the bank affiliated funds.
To add up to the portfolio characteristics, United Kingdom closed-end funds diverge in terms of their tenure configuration. On average, 64 percent of the resources of bank-affiliated funds is held by the public, but the average public stake is only 53 percent for non-bank affiliated funds. The proportion of fund’s shares held by the largest shareholder is 35 percent for nonbank related funds and 23 percent for bank related funds.
In spite of the fact that there is a negligible distinction in the magnitudes of managerial everyday expenditure and net asset values of bank and non-bank related funds, they are revealed to be to a vast degree diverse at a definite proportion. The earnings rate of bank-affiliated funds is considerably higher than that of the non-bank affiliated funds. What is more, compared to the non-bank affiliated funds, the bank affiliated funds seem to spend more often than not in larger company shares.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
There is comprehensive appraisal of the recent and contemporary work on closed end equity funds in their performance with correlation with the discounts and premiums in the United Kingdom market. This has been achieved by massive center of attention on the London Stock Exchange market. Being more precise, the study carried out in this paper has majorly focused on the closed end equity funds for which investors are claimed to misestimate the impact managerial skills have on the rate of discounts on the funds. Index funds have a propensity to trade at a noteworthy discount, and this probably accounts for their rarity, in view of the fact that it discourages novel issues. There is the presence of sizeable substantiation that professed managerial skill affects discounts on actively managed funds, both from the cross-sectional model of discounts and from the tendency for discounts to be more volatile on actively managed than on index funds. It is minimally accurate and precise that managerial skill accounts for the general predisposition for funds to trade at a discount. Costs on management are conspicuously lower on older funds, in direct contradiction of the assumptions in Berk and Stanton’s (2007) model, which combines tentative managerial skill with coherent investors. In particular the managerial skill supposition cannot explain why index funds also typically do business at a discount.
In this investigate study, there is the execution of a simple test of Lee et al.’s (1991) hypothesis that closed-end funds trade at a discount due to the fact that discount risk is to some extent methodical. The results acquired give the suggestion that, in spite of the fact that closed-end fund shares put on show surplus return volatility relative to their underlying assets, discount risk is more often than not idiosyncratic, with the systematic element for the most part restricted to the very highly composite funds. The investor sentiment explanation of discounts of Lee et al. (1991) is that they exist due to the fact that an investor who holds closed-end funds carries superior portfolio risk than one who holds open-end funds. This research study bases its argument on the fact that there is some truth in that theory even though discount risk is majorly purely distinctive, for the reason that, in a world with dealings costs, investors only hold a small number of risky assets, each of which represents a crucial slice of the portfolio. In such a world, it is the superfluous fickleness of closed end equity funds profits rather than the methodical element of discount risk that is vital for portfolio risk.
This research study paper has examined how noise trading and costly arbitrage proceed in concert to form basis of the asset prices to swerve from elementary values. The center of attention has been on closed end equity funds due to the fact that they have crystal clear prices and values. A few questions are taken into consideration throughout this research study: the reason why there are deviations and variations of the price relative to net-asset value (i.e., why there are fluctuations of the discount), why there is an average discount in the long-run and how the discounts affect the performance of the closed end equity funds in the United Kingdom. This study was done in contemplation with the period of the last five years.
In consideration of the deviations and variations of the discount, there is the sighting that they are strongly slanted by small-investor sentiment from month-to-month and possibly from year to- year. Using disaggregated flows to quite a lot of individual U.K. sectors over 65 months, there is credible evidence that retail flows to a meticulous segment have a very noteworthy manipulate on the contemporary level of the discount. Noise generated by small investors also has some effect on the prices of the security assets held by the closed end fund. There is also the discovery that, over the last 30 years, that when small investors trim down their holdings of the largest U.K. closed-end fund, its discount tends to enlarge.
The allusion is that noise may have a low-frequency, as well as a high-frequency, impact on asset prices. In correlation to the fact that there is the subsistence of a long-run discount on closed-end funds, it is found that it is not an incongruity. Noise trading causes a fund’s price to move in connection to net asset value, but that digression and discrepancy is controlled by upper and lower arbitrages. For a fund which is not easy to follow and imitate, it is probable for a large discount to build up before arbitrage or open-ending is profitable. By lack of correspondence, a large premium does not exist for very long because fresh issues can be launched speedily, which is profitable for the executives. The interconnection and linkage between noise and arbitrage, the former moving the price and the latter restricting its variation to a specific sector give rise to the existence of a discount. In adding up, when arbitrage is costly the executives have the lack of precincts to set relatively high charges and this contributes to the discount.
Cross-sectional data on 158 U.K. funds over 1991 to 1997 substantiate that the discount is hefty for funds which are elite to arbitrage, that is, for those which are not easy to mimic, are diminutive, and often possess near to the ground dividend yields. Such funds also have high executive operating expense. The hypothesis that the discount is the result of a priced sentiment factor, along the lines suggested by DSSW and LST, is not supported in the cross-section. Noise traders never seem to appear to “generate their own rewards”.
Numerous questions are yet to be answered even after this study was carried out and hence there is still room for further research and studies in the same area of study. Investor sentiment may be related to the level of the stock market, but what causes investor sentiment to become so positive that fresh issues of closed-end funds are possible? One possible answer would be if other avenues for particular investment do not exist at the time, so small investors worry about the covert opportunity loss from not investing without more ado.
On the other hand, level-headedness would also have need of small investors in fresh funds being well knowledgeable, whereas there is evidence from both the U.S. and U.K. that they are not (Hanley, Lee and Seguin (1996) and Gemmill and Thomas (1997)). In this the avenue taken by this study is of the same mind with LST who observe that “closed-end funds are a device by which smart entrepreneurs take advantage of a less-sophisticated public” (page 84). The matter is extremely momentous, for the reason that it implies that tighter directive of financial services may be advantageous.
An additional plausible line of research concerns the governance and open-ending of funds. U.S. research indicates that funds with less autonomous executives have higher operation costs (Dann, Del Guercio, and Partch (2000)), redolent of a conflict linking shareholders and the board. It is still a mystery that wide levels of discount can hold on to existence for such very longest periods of time without any take-over bid taking place. Barclay, Holderness, and Pontiff (1993) relate this to friendly lump holders who resist open-ending, but another case scenario is that administration groups have interconnected and interlinking directorships, leading to inherent conspiracy across funds (Rowe and Davidson (1999)). Anecdotal evidence in the U.K. indicates that fund managers do not take on in ravenous performance for fear that other managers will not support their fresh issues after that. Much more might be discovered in this area.
There would be a key concentration and consideration to evaluate and contrast the cross-sectional tests between the UK funds with the US counterparts’ data and for that reason provide evidence that, in a diverse environment, that it is the interaction of noise, expenses and arbitrage, which causes closed-end funds to do business at market prices that are less than elementary values.
The extent of the discount in the London Stocks Exchange market is different from that pragmatic for closed end equity funds in the U.S. market. In addition, the discount on United Kingdom closed-end funds varies and deviates widely over time just like the discount on the U.S. funds does.
Consequent to researching and analyzing the discount and its variability, the factors affecting this discount is put into focus as the main criterion of the study for the funds bought and sold on the London Stocks Exchange with a cross-sectional analysis. The conclusion point in the direction of that when analyzed in a univariate setting, there is a differentiation amid discounts on bank and non-bank affiliated funds. This finding majorly supports the purported strong position of banks in the closed end equity fund market in the United Kingdom.
An interface variable between bank and calamity variables is created and the model with this variable is estimated for the entire sample, it is established that bank-affiliated funds have radically lower discount than nonbank affiliated ones but when we consider crisis, they have higher discount than the later funds (Malkiel 1995). The coefficient on the interaction variable is found to be significant at 1 percent.
On the other hand, when analyzed in a multivariate setting, this distinction in discounts on bank and non-bank affiliated funds disappears. What is more, multivariate analysis sustain agency expenses explanation of the discount. In addition, income on the market index, degree of diversification, the stock holdings and liquidity of funds are found to be very much momentous factors elucidating the discount on closed-end funds.
First, this study shows that the findings in the developed markets cannot be generalized to each and every market since they have diverse characteristics like when the UK closed end fund market is compared with that of the US. Second, similar to the U.S. market (Malkiel, 1995), tenure arrangement is not an imperative variable that explains the discount observed in this United Kingdom market. Third, the perceived role and the reputation of intermediaries in UK financial organization may be rather dissimilar from that of the United States of America. For this reason, all of these effects have to be put into contemplation in making investment decisions in the United Kingdom market.
A small number of problems in finance are as confusing as the closed-end equity. Closed end equity is a mutual fund which more often than not possesses other publicly traded securities. Close end equity issues a unchanging numbers of shares that are traded on the stock market. To settle a holding in a fund, investors have got to put on the market their shares to other investors rather than exchange them with the fund itself for the net asset value per share. The closed-end fund conundrum is the experimental finding that closed-end fund shares usually put up for sale at prices not equivalent to the per share market value of assets the fund possesses. Even though equity at times sells at premium to their net asset values, in recent years discounts of 10 to 20 percent have been the custom. The latest augment in the standard level of the discount amongst UK closed-end funds has put the industry under analysis. Funds that cannot keep the level of the discount within an acceptable range are at risk of disappearing and at present at least one closed-end fund each month is announcing restructuring or wind-up arrangements. At the same time, there are still a number of new floatation’s of closed-end funds. Time-honored funds that meet up a perceived need will survive. For some managers, European monetary union will provide a further opportunity to bring closed-end (as well as open-end) funds to investors all over Europe (Elroy D. & Carolina M. 2002).
Throughout this research period, the study seeks to demystify the existence and interconnection of the discounts on the closed end equity funds in the United Kingdom with major assistance from the London Stocks Exchange.
Chapter 6: Reflection
Throughout this study, there were some difficulties in the collection of data. This could be improved by taking an average of the active stocks in the closed end equity fund market in the United Kingdom. I felt that the trends of the discounts on the closed end equity funds are not easily predictable and may also be affected by natural calamities like the volcanic eruption in 2010 affected the markets. The stocks with premiums nose-dived into discounts to encourage more investors to buy their shares. The closed end funds operate at most times on discounts and even after the end of this study, the mystery connecting them is yet to be fully cleared. With the emergence of new funds every moment shows that some do prosper while at the same time others disappear giving the notion that there are also some failures.
Just like the open end funds, the closed end funds are affected by investor sentiments so for it to prosper, it must instill confidence in the investors on its reliability. Furthermore for efficiency, it must be consistent and not varying extremely. Funds that are highly prevalent to investors are the ones that trade in premiums or are highly to trade in premiums in the future.
FTSE 350 share price graph above
Global equity markets ended 2010 on a strongly positive note. The MSCI World Index rose 9.1% in US dollar terms in the final quarter taking the return for the year as a whole to 12.3%. (Standard Bank)
Japan and North America led the rally, rising by 12% and 11% respectively, while continental Europe lagged, rising 4%, and thus just managing to put in a positive gain for the year of 2.4%. (Though the EMU/Euro member countries within Europe actually fell 3.4% over the year). (Standard BANK)
UK was stuck halfway between the leaders and laggards at 8.8%. This was the rate at which the closed end fund traded at a discount (These are figures obtained from Standard Bank)
2010 also comes to a close on an optimistic economic note, with data releases on balance continuing to surprise to the upside and analysts continuing to upgrade corporate earnings expectations for 2011. Despite the fact that not for that reason at difficult to deal with valuations, the major questions for 2011 remain how markets may act in response were global interest rates and bond yields finally to rise to more typical levels, now a good deal extra the system in emerging markets might tighten policy, and how the problems of the Euro zone will develop. (an excerpt from the annual reports from Standard Bank).
Fund Performance for 2010 as a whole the fund rose by 15.1%, 2.8% ahead of the index return of 12.3%. (MCSI fund Index)
Efficiency of the approach 2010 as an entirety has seen something of the “return to rationality” which was equally anticipated and hoped would occur, with investors focusing on underlying company profitability and rewarding those companies whose prospects were improving the fastest and greatest. (an excerpt from the annual reports from Standard Bank).
An interesting aspect of 2010 was perhaps the historically low spread of returns across companies, with the best outperforming the worst by a smaller than average margin. As the “easy” earnings growth is likely to be behind us, we might expect this gap to be wider in 2011, hopefully to our advantage. (an excerpt from the annual reports from Standard Bank).
The 2010/2011 tax year was the second best in 10 years with net ISA sales of £3.7 billion. The ISA season, covering the period 1st March – 5th April 2011 was the best in 9 years with net sales of £956 million. ISAs make up 18% of all authorized funds under management.
NET RETAIL ISA SALES
Full tax year
1 Mar to 5 Apr
1 – 5 Apr
Jan – 5 April
|2010 – 11
|2009 – 10
|2008 – 09
|2007 – 08
|2006 – 07
|2005 – 06
|2004 – 05
|2003 – 04
|2002 – 03
|2001 – 02
|2000 – 01
NB: From January 2008, ISA figures are based on ISAs provided by fund companies and five platforms (Cofunds, Fidelity, Hargreaves Landsdown, Skandia and Transact). Figures for earlier years cover slightly less platform business. All figures include former PEPs. /m
Aydoğan, Kursat and Gulnur Muradoğlu. “Do Markets Learn from Experience? Price Reactions to Stock Dividends in the Turkish Market,” Applied Financial Economics 8 (1998), 41-50.
Barclay, Michael, Clifford Holderness, and Jeffrey Pontiff. “Private benefits from Block Ownership and Discounts on Closed-end Funds,” Journal of Financial Economics 33 (June 1993), 263-291.
Bekeart, Geert, Claude B. Erb, Campbell R. Harvey and Tadas Viskanta. “The Behavior of Emerging Market Returns.” In The Future of Emerging Market Capital Flows, Richard Levich (editor), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Chapter 5 (1998), 107-173.
Bodurtha, James N., Dong-Soon Kim and Charles M.C. Lee. “Closed-end Country Funds and the U.S. Market Sentiment,” The Review of Financial Studies 8 (Fall 1995), 879-918.
Boudreaux, Kenneth J. “Discounts and Premiums on Closed-end Mutual Funds: A Study in Valuation,” The Journal of Finance 28 (May 1973), 515-522.
Brauer, Greggory A. “Closed-end Fund Shares’ abnormal Returns and the Information Content of Discounts and Premiums,” The Journal of Finance 43 (March 1988), 113-127.
Chay, Jong-Bom and Charles Trzcinka. “Managerial Performance and the Cross-Sectional Pricing of Closed-end Funds,” Journal of Financial Economics 52 (June 1999),
Chen, N., Kan, R. and Miller, M. H., ‘Are the discounts on closed-end funds a sentimentindex?’ Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, 1993a, pp. 795–800.
Chen, N., Kan, R. and Miller, M. H., ‘A rejoinder’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, 1993b, pp.809–10.
Chopra, N., Lee, C. M., Shleifer, A. and Thaler, R. H., ‘Yes, discounts on closed-end funds area sentiment index’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, 1993a, pp. 801–8.
Chopra, N., Lee, C. M., Shleifer, A. and Thaler, R. H., Summing up, Journal of Finance, Vol.48, 1993b, pp. 811–2.
Datar, Vinay. “Impact of Illiquidity on Premia/Discounts in Closed-end Funds,” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 41 (2001), 19-135.
De Long, J. B., Shleifer, A., Summers, L. H. and Waldmann, R. J., ‘Noise trader risk infinancial markets’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, 1990, pp. 703–738.
Dimson, Elroy, and Carolina Minio-Kozerski, 1998, The closed-end fund discount and performance persistence, Working paper, London Business School.
Dimson, Elroy, and Carolina Minio-Kozerski, 1999, Closed-end funds: A survey, Financial Markets Institutions and Instruments 9, 1-41.
Draper, Paul, 1989, The Investment Trust Industry in the U.K.: An Empirical Analysis (Gower Press, London). 23
Draper, Paul, and Krishna Paudyal, 1991, The investment trust discount revisited, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 18, 791-806.
Doukas, John A. and Nikolaos T. Milonas. “Investor Sentiment and the Closed-end Fund Puzzle: Out-of-sample Evidence,” European Financial Management 10 (June 2004), 235-266.
Elton, E., Gruber, M. and Busse, J. A., ‘Do investors care about sentiment?’, Journal of Business, Vol. 71, no. 4, 1998, pp. 477–500.
Fama, E., ‘Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 49, 1998, pp. 283–306.
Gemmill, Gordon, and Dylan C.Thomas, 1997, Warrants on the London Stock Exchange: Pricing bias and investor confusion, European Finance Review 1, 31-49.
Gibbons, M. R., Ross, S. and Shanken, J., ‘A test of the efficiency of a given portfolio’, Econometrica, Vol. 57, September 1989, pp.3–56.
Goetzmann,William N., Massimo Massa, and K.Geert Rouwenhorst, 2000, Behavioral factors in mutual fund flows, Working paper, International Center for Finance, Yale University.
Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, Whitney Newey, and Harvey S. Rosen, 1988, Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data, Econometrica 56, 1371–1395.
Hu, Fan, Alastair R. Hall, and Campbell R. Harvey, 2000, Promotion or demotion? An empirical investigation of the determinants of top mutual fund manager change, working paper.
Ingersoll, Jonathan, 1976, A theoretical and empirical investigation of the dual purpose funds, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 81-123.
Jin, Li, and Anna Scherbina, 2006, Inheriting Losers, Woking Paper, Harvard Business School.
Johansen, Soren, 1995, Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Kumar, Raman, and Gregory N. Noronha, 1992, A re-examination of the relationship between closed-end fund discounts and expenses, Journal of Financial Research 15, 139-47.
Khorana, Ajay, 1996, Top management turnover: an empirical investigation of mutual fund managers, Journal of Financial Economics 40, 403–427.
Khorana, Ajay, 2001, Performance changes following top management turnover: evidence from open-end mutual funds, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 36, 371–393.
Lee, C. M., Shleifer, A. and Thaler, R. H., ‘Investor sentiment and the closed-end fund puzzle’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, no. 1, 1991, pp. 75–109.
Levis, Mario, and Dylan C. Thomas, 1995, Investment trust IPOs: Issuing behavior and price performance, Journal of Banking and Finance 19, 1437-1458.
Malkiel, B., ‘The valuation of closed-end fund investment company shares’, Journal of Finance, Malkiel, Burton G. “The Valuation of Closed-end Investment Company Shares,” The Journal of Finance 32 (June 1977), 847-859. . Vol. 32, 1977, pp. 847–59.
Malkiel, Burton G. “The Structure of Closed-end Fund Discounts Revisited,” The Journal of Portfolio Management (Summer 1995), 32-38.
Margrabe,William, 1978, The value of an option to exchange one asset for another, Journal of Finance 33, 177-186.
Meridian Securities Markets. Ranking of World Stock Markets. Austin, Texas: Meridian Securities Markets, LLC, 1997.
Minio-Paluello, Carolina, 1998, The U.K. Closed-End Fund Discount, Ph.D. thesis, London Business School.
Muradoglu, Gulnur and M. Unal. “Weak-form Efficiency in The Thinly Traded Istanbul Securities Exchange,” Middle East Business and Economic Review 6 (1994): 37-44.
Nickell, Stephen, 1981, Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects, Econometrica 47, 1417–1426.
Önder, Zeynep. “Ownership Concentration and Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkish Firms,” METU Studies in Development 30 (December 2003): 181-203. Vol. 32, 1977, pp. 847–59.
Pontiff, Jeffrey, 1995, Closed-end fund premia and returns: Implications for financial market equilibrium, Journal of Financial Economics 37, 341–370.
Pratt, Eugene. “Myths Associated with Closed-end Investment Company Discounts,” Financial Analysts Journal 22 (July-August 1966) , 79-82.
Rea, John. 1996. “the U.S. Emerging Market Funds: Hot Money or Stable Source of Investment Capital.” Investment Company Institute Perspective 2 (December 1996), viewed on October 30, 2004, www.ici.org/perspective/per02=06.pdf.
Ross, S., ‘Neoclassical finance, alternative finance and the closed end fund puzzle’, European Financial Management, Vol. 8, no. 1, 2002, pp. 129–37.
Rowe,Wei Wang, and Wallace N. Davidson, 1999, Do the boards of directors and blockholders protect closed-end fund shareholders from excessive expenses? Working paper, University of Nebraska.
Standard and Poor’s. Standard and Poor’s Emerging Stock Markets Review: Performance, Valuation and Constituents, June 2002.
Thompson, Rex. “The Information Content of Discounts and Premiums on Closed-end Fund Shares,” Journal of Financial Economics 6 (June/September1978), 151-186.
Wansley, James W., Rodney L. Roenfeldt, and Philip P. Cooley, 1983, Abnormal returns from merger profiles, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 18, 149-163.
Warther,Vincent A., 1995, Aggregate mutual fund flows and security returns, Journal of Financial Economics 39, 209-235.
Weiss, K. “The Post-Offering Price Performance of Closed-End Funds,” Financial Management 18 (1989), 57-67.
Yüce, A., Z. Önder and C.Simga-Mugan. “Preferences and Behaviors of Small Investors in the ISE,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 17, no.2 (1999), 201-221.s
Zweig, M., ‘An investor expectations stock price predictive model using closed-end fund premiums’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 28, 1973, pp. 67–86.
Appendix: The Discount and Expenses
As of the fundamental theorem that ‘a portfolio of shares is worth the present value of future distributable cash flows’, we have the expression for a fund’s net-asset value:
tNAV tCt /(1 r) 0 =å + (A1)
Where C is expected cash flow (i.e., payouts to shareholders holding the fund’s underlying portfolio),
r is required rate of return and t is a time subscript.
The market value of a closed-end fund may be written as:
tt t t P (C X ) /(1 r) 0 =å – + (A2)
Where: P is market price and X is expenses. Defining the discount as
0 0 0 0 DIS = (NAV – P ) / NAV (A3) and using this definition with (A1) and (A2) we may write:
tt ttt t tC rK C rDIS/(1 )/(1 )0 ++= åå (A4)
where Kt is the ratio of expenses to cash flow in period t (= Xt / Ct ). If this ratio is constant in each period, then we have the very simple result that the discount on a closed-end fund must be constant and equal to the expense-to-cash flow ratio at time zero, i.e., 000 CXDIS = .
lllconstant and equal
List of tables
Net retail ISA sales……………………………………………………………………….76
Performance of global growth investment trusts……………………………………….83
List of graphs