This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Measuring the True Cost of Active Management by Mutual Funds

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ross M. Miller (State University of New York at Albany)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Recent years have seen a dramatic shift from mutual funds into hedge funds even though hedge funds charge management fees that have been decried as outrageous. While expectations of superior returns may be responsible for this shift, this article shows that mutual funds are more expensive than commonly believed. Mutual funds appear to provide investment services for relatively low fees because they bundle passive and active funds management together in a way that understates the true cost of active management. In particular, funds engaging in “closet” or “shadow” indexing charge their investors for active management while providing them with little more than an indexed investment. Even the average mutual fund, which ostensibly provides only active management, will have over 90% of the variance in its returns explained by its benchmark index. This article derives a method for allocating fund expenses between active and passive management and constructs a simple formula for finding the cost of active management. Computing this “active expense ratio” requires only a fund’s published expense ratio, its R-squared relative to a benchmark index, and the expense ratio for a competitive fund that tracks that index. At the end of 2004, the mean active expense ratio for the large-cap equity mutual funds tracked by Morningstar was 7%, over six times their published expense ratio of 1.15%. More broadly, funds in the Morningstar universe had a mean active expense ratio of 5.2%, while the largest funds averaged a percent or two less.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://129.3.20.41/eps/fin/papers/0506/0506010.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Finance with number 0506010.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 23 pages
Date of creation: 16 Jun 2005
Date of revision: 08 Jul 2005
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpfi:0506010

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 23
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://129.3.20.41

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).

Related research
Keywords: mutual fund expenses; cost allocation; active expense ratio; active alpha; portable alpha;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
G - Financial Economics

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. " The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-65, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Dybvig, Philip H & Ross, Stephen A, 1985. " Differential Information and Performance Measurement Using a Security Market Line," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(2), pages 383-99, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. David Eagle, 2005. "The Indexing Paradox -- Be Thankful for Irrational Investors," Finance 0512034, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.