IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v102y2012i1p576-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Shrouded Fees: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in the Indian Mutual Funds Market

Author

Listed:
  • Santosh Anagol
  • Hugh Hoikwang Kim

Abstract

We study a natural experiment in the Indian mutual funds sector that created a 22-month period in which closed-end funds were allowed to charge an arguably shrouded fee, whereas open-end funds were forced to charge entry loads. Forty-five new closed-end funds were started during this period, collecting $7.6 billion US, whereas only two closed-end funds were started in the 66 months prior to this period, collecting $42 billion US, and no closed-end funds were started in the 20 months after this period. We estimate that investors lost and fund firms gained approximately $350 million US due to this shrouding. (JEL D14, G23, G28, O16)

Suggested Citation

  • Santosh Anagol & Hugh Hoikwang Kim, 2012. "The Impact of Shrouded Fees: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in the Indian Mutual Funds Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 576-593, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:102:y:2012:i:1:p:576-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.102.1.576
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/feb2012/20110047_data.zip
    File Function: dataset accompanying article
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Carlin, Bruce I., 2009. "Strategic price complexity in retail financial markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 278-287, March.
    3. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2010. "Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment on Index Mutual Funds," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1405-1432, April.
    4. Gruber, Martin J, 1996. "Another Puzzle: The Growth in Activity Managed Mutual Funds," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(3), pages 783-810, July.
    5. Jeremy C. Stein, 2005. "Why are Most Funds Open-End? Competition and the Limits of Arbitrage," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(1), pages 247-272.
    6. Fabian Duarte & Justine S. Hastings, 2012. "Fettered Consumers and Sophisticated Firms: Evidence from Mexico's Privatized Social Security Market," NBER Working Papers 18582, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gu, Yiquan & Wenzel, Tobias, 2020. "Curbing obfuscation: Empower consumers or regulate firms?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    4. Thorp, S. & Bateman, H. & Dobrescu, L.I. & Newell, B.R. & Ortmann, A., 2020. "Flicking the switch: Simplifying disclosure to improve retirement plan choices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2015. "Money Doctors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(1), pages 91-114, February.
      • Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, "undated". "Money Doctors," Working Paper 69721, Harvard University OpenScholar.
      • Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2012. "Money Doctors," Working Papers 464, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
      • Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, "undated". "Money Doctors," Working Paper 228501, Harvard University OpenScholar.
      • Gennaioli, Nicola & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 2014. "Money Doctors," Scholarly Articles 12965657, Harvard University Department of Economics.
      • Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 2012. "Money Doctors," NBER Working Papers 18174, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2012. "Money doctors," Economics Working Papers 1355, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Justine Hastings & Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2017. "Sales Force and Competition in Financial Product Markets: The Case of Mexico's Social Security Privatization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1723-1761, November.
    7. Mark Egan & Gregor Matvos & Amit Seru, 2019. "The Market for Financial Adviser Misconduct," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 233-295.
    8. Santosh Anagol & Shawn Cole & Shayak Sarkar, 2012. "Understanding the Advice of Commissions-Motivated Agents: Evidence from the Indian Life Insurance Market," Harvard Business School Working Papers 12-055, Harvard Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    9. Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi & Takeshi Murooka, 2017. "Inferior Products and Profitable Deception," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 323-356.
    10. Mark Egan & Shan Ge & Johnny Tang, 2022. "Conflicting Interests and the Effect of Fiduciary Duty: Evidence from Variable Annuities," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(12), pages 5334-5386.
    11. Ioana Chioveanu & Jidong Zhou, 2013. "Price Competition with Consumer Confusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2450-2469, November.
    12. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Vokata, Petra, 2021. "Engineering lemons," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 737-755.
    14. Yiquan Gu & Tobias Wenzel, 2014. "Strategic Obfuscation and Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 632-660, December.
    15. Lunn, Pete & Somerville, Jason J., 2015. "Surplus Identification with Non-Linear Returns," Papers WP522, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    16. Mark Grinblatt & Seppo Ikäheimo & Matti Keloharju & Samuli Knüpfer, 2016. "IQ and Mutual Fund Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 924-944, April.
    17. Beşliu, Corina, 2022. "Complexity in insurance selection: Cross-classified multilevel analysis of experimental data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    18. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    19. Ran Spiegler, 2015. "On the Equilibrium Effects of Nudging," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 389-416.
    20. Gamp, Tobias, 2015. "Search, Differentiated Products, and Obfuscation," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112886, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. The Impact of Shrouded Fees: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in the Indian Mutual Funds Market (AER 2012) in ReplicationWiki

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:102:y:2012:i:1:p:576-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.