1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Financial Economics
  4. Volume 9, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Financial Economics

Volume 9, 2017

Mutual Funds in Equilibrium

Abstract

Historically, the literature on money management has inconsistently applied the rational expectations equilibrium concept. We explain why and summarize developments in the money management literature that do apply this concept correctly. We demonstrate that the rational expectations equilibrium approximates the observed equilibrium in the money management space at least as well as it does in the stock market. Recent work reveals that there is little support for the common conclusion that, as a group, investors in the money management space are naive and that mutual fund managers are charlatans. Even today, equilibrium thinking is not nearly as prevalent in mutual fund research as it is in the rest of asset pricing. This state of play provides a multitude of opportunities for future research in the area.

Keyword(s): alpha, rational expectations, returns to scale, skill, value added
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454
2017-11-01
2024-05-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/financial/9/1/annurev-financial-110716-032454.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Bansal R, Yaron A. 2004. Risks for the long run: a potential resolution of asset pricing puzzles. J. Finance 59:41481–50 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barber BM, Huang X, Odean T. 2016. What risk factors matter to investors? Evidence from mutual fund flows. Rev. Financ. Stud. 29:2600–42 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berk JB, Green RC. 2004. Mutual fund flows and performance in rational markets. J. Political Econ. 112:61269–95 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berk JB, Stanton RH. 2007. Managerial ability, compensation, and the closed-end fund discount. J. Finance 62:2529–56 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berk JB, van Binsbergen JH. 2015. Measuring skill in the mutual fund industry. J. Financ. Econ. 118:11–20 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berk JB, van Binsbergen JH. 2016. Assessing asset pricing models using revealed preference. J. Financ. Econ. 119:11–23 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berk JB, van Binsbergen JH, Liu B. 2017. Matching capital and labor. J. Finance. In press. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jofi.12542/abstract
  8. Blocher J, Molyboga M. 2017. The revealed preference of sophisticated investors. Eur. Financ. Manag. In press
  9. Breeden DT. 1979. An intertemporal asset pricing model with stochastic consumption and investment opportunities. J. Financ. Econ. 7:3265–96 [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell JY, Cochrane JH. 1999. By force of habit: a consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. J. Political Econ. 107:205–51 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carhart MM. 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52:57–82 [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi D, Kahraman B, Mukherjee A. 2014. Performance-chasing behavior and mutual funds: new evidence from multi-fund managers Presented at Am. Finance Assoc. Annu. Meet., Jan. 3–5, Philadelphia
  13. Epstein LG, Zin SE. 1991. Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: an empirical analysis. J. Political Econ. 99:263–86 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fama EF. 1965. The behavior of stock market prices. J. Bus. 38:134–105 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fama EF. 1970. Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J. Finance 25:2383–417 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fama EF. 1976. Efficient capital markets: reply. J. Finance 31:1143–45 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fama EF, French KR. 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 33:13–56 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fama EF, French KR. 1996. Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. J. Finance 51:55–87 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fama EF, French KR. 2010. Luck versus skill in the cross section of mutual fund returns. J. Finance 65:51915–47 [Google Scholar]
  20. Franzoni FA, Schmalz MC. 2017. Fund flows and market states. Rev. Financ. Stud. 30:82621–73 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kreps DM, Porteus EL. 1978. Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica 46:1185–200 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lintner J. 1965. The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev. Econ. Stat. 47:113–37 [Google Scholar]
  23. Malkiel BG. 1995. Returns from investing in equity mutual funds 1971 to 1991. J. Finance 50:2549–72 [Google Scholar]
  24. Merton RC. 1973. Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. J. Econ. Theory 3:373–413 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mossin J. 1966. Equilibrium in a capital asset market. Econometrica 34:4768–83 [Google Scholar]
  26. Muth JF. 1961. Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica 29:3315–35 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pastor L, Stambaugh RF, Taylor LA. 2014. Do funds make more when they trade more? NBER Work. Pap. 20700
  28. Pastor L, Stambaugh RF, Taylor LA. 2015. Scale and skill in active management. J. Financ. Econ. 116:23–45 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ross SA. 1976. The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing. J. Econ. Theory 13:3341–60 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sharpe WF. 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 19:3425–42 [Google Scholar]
  31. Treynor J. 1961. Toward a theory of the market value of risky assets Unpublished manuscript [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454
Loading
Mutual Funds in Equilibrium
Annual Review of Financial Economics 9, 147 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-financial-110716-032454
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error