IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jfinqa/v55y2020i1p223-261_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Mutual Fund Investors Overweight the Probability of Extreme Payoffs in the Return Distribution?

Author

Listed:
  • Akbas, Ferhat
  • Genc, Egemen

Abstract

We investigate the role of extreme positive payoffs in the distribution of monthly fund returns in investors’ mutual fund preferences. We document a positive and significant relationship between the maximum style-adjusted monthly return (MAX) and future fund flows. The relationship is robust to controlling for average performance, volatility, skewness, and various other fund characteristics. Our findings are consistent with the notion that fund investors overweight the probability of high payoff states in the past return distribution. We further show that MAX is not a useful predictor of future performance and that an increase in a fund’s visibility does not explain our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Akbas, Ferhat & Genc, Egemen, 2020. "Do Mutual Fund Investors Overweight the Probability of Extreme Payoffs in the Return Distribution?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(1), pages 223-261, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:55:y:2020:i:1:p:223-261_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022109018001345/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Cheng & Han, Jing, 2023. "Prospect theory and mutual fund flows: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Agarwal, Vikas & Jiang, Lei & Wen, Quan, 2020. "Why do mutual funds hold lottery stocks?," CFR Working Papers 20-08, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    3. Yang Song, 2020. "The Mismatch Between Mutual Fund Scale and Skill," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(5), pages 2555-2589, October.
    4. Gupta, Nilesh & Mishra, Anil V & Jacob, Joshy, 2022. "Prospect theory preferences and global mutual fund flows," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Li, C. Wei & Tiwari, Ashish & Tong, Lin, 2022. "Mutual fund tournaments and fund Active Share," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Asgar Ali & K. N. Badhani, 2023. "Tail risk, beta anomaly, and demand for lottery: what explains cross-sectional variations in equity returns?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 775-804, August.
    7. Hu, Shiyang & Xiang, Cheng & Quan, Xiaofeng, 2023. "Salience theory and mutual fund flows: Empirical evidence from China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    8. Chang, Xiaochen & Guo, Songlin & Huang, Junkai, 2022. "Kidnapped mutual funds: Irrational preference of naive investors and fund incentive distortion," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Omori, Kozo & Kitamura, Tomoki, 2023. "Investor response to Morningstar's ratings, category information, and alpha in the Japanese mutual fund market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Asgar Ali & K. N. Badhani, 2023. "Downside risk matters once the lottery effect is controlled: explaining risk–return relationship in the Indian equity market," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 27-43, February.
    11. Yu, Bin & Shen, Yifan & Jin, Xuejun & Xu, Qi, 2022. "Does prospect theory explain mutual fund performance? Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    12. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Market Instability, Investor Sentiment, And Probability Judgment Error in Index Option Prices," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 71, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jfinqa:v:55:y:2020:i:1:p:223-261_7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jfq .

    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.