[en] Institutional investors face various leverage and short-sale restrictions that alter competition in the asset management industry. This distortion enables unconstrained investors with high volatility targets to extract additional income from constrained institutional investors. Using a sample of 1,938 long/short equity hedge funds spanning 15 years, the authors show that high-volatility funds charge higher fees and deliver lower net-of-fees Sharpe ratios than do their low-volatility peers. This evidence could be interpreted as a situational rent extraction or as a service compensation. Conversely, increased volatility could result from a manager's ambition to deliver large net information ratios after accounting for a high fee structure.
Disciplines :
Finance
Author, co-author :
Hübner, Georges ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > Gestion financière
Lambert, Marie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > Analyse financière et finance d'entreprise
Language :
English
Title :
Performance sharing in risky portfolios: The case of hedge fund returns and fees
Publication date :
2019
Journal title :
Journal of Portfolio Management
ISSN :
0095-4918
eISSN :
2168-8656
Publisher :
Institutional Investor Systems, United States - New York
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Asness, C. S., A. Frazzini, and L. H. Pedersen. 2012. “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity.” Financial Analysts Journal 68, no. 1 (January/February): 47–59.
Baker, M., B. Bradley, and J. Wurgler. 2011. “Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly.” Financial Analysts Journal 67, no. 1 (January/ February): 40–54.
Black, F. 1972. “Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing.” The Journal of Business 45, no. 3 (July): 444–455.
Blume, M. E., and I. Friend. 1973. “A New Look at the Capital Asset Pricing Model.” The Journal of Finance 28, no. 1 (March): 19–34.
Boehmer, E., and J. Wu. 2013. “Short Selling and the Price Discovery Process.” Review of Financial Studies 26, no. 2 (February): 287–322.
Brennan, M. J. 1971. “Capital Market Equilibrium with Divergent Borrowing and Lending Rates.” The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 6, no. 5 (December): 1197–1205.
Clarke, R., H. de Silva, and S. Thorley. 2002. “Portfolio Constraints and the Fundamental Law of Active Management.” Financial Analysts Journal 58, no. 5 (Sept/Oct): 48–66.
Frazzini, A., and L. H. Pedersen. 2014. “Betting against Beta.” Journal of Financial Economics 111, no. 1 (January): 1–25.
Jacobs, B., and K. Levy. 2007. “20 Myths about Enhanced Active 120–20 Strategies.” Financial Analysts Journal 63, no. 4 (July/August): 19–26.
——. 2013. “Leverage Aversion, Efficient Frontiers, and the Efficient Region.” The Journal of Portfolio Management (forthcoming).
Jank, S., and E. Smajlbegovic. “Dissecting Short-Sale Performance: Evidence from Large Position Disclosures.” Working paper, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR), 2015.
Lintner, J. 1965. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 47, no. 1 (February): 13–37.
Markowitz, H. 1952. “Portfolio Selection.” The Journal of Finance 7, no. 1 (March): 77–91.
Mossin, J. 1966. “Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market.” Econometrica 34, no. 4 (October): 768–783.
Ross, S. A. 1977. “The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Short-Sale Restrictions and Related Issues.” The Journal of Finance 32, no. 1 (March): 177–183.
Sharpe, W. F. 1964. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.” The Journal of Finance 19, no. 3 (September): 425–442.
Sorensen, E. H., J. Shi, R. Hua, and E. Qian. 2007. “Aspects of Constrained Long/Short Equity Portfolios.” The Journal of Portfolio Management 33, no. 2 (Winter): 12–20.
Tobin, J. 1958. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior towards Risk.” The Review of Economic Studies 25, no. 2 (February): 65–86.
Similar publications
Sorry the service is unavailable at the moment. Please try again later.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.