Conventional mutual index funds versus exchange-traded funds
This paper examines the implications of substitutability of two similar investment vehicles: conventional index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). It seeks to explain the coexistence of these vehicle types, which offer a claim on the same underlying index return process, but have distinctly different organizational structures. This study compares aggregate fund flows into conventional open-ended index funds to those into ETFs for various underlying indexes. The study shows that conventional funds and ETFs are substitutes, but not perfect substitutes for one another. Evidence suggests that the coexistence of both instruments can be explained by a clientele effect that segregates the two vehicles into different market niches.
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.:
- Edwin J. Elton, 2002. "Spiders: Where Are the Bugs?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-472, July.
- Plancich, Stephanie, 2003. "Mutual Fund Capital Gain Distributions and the Tax Reform Act of 1997," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 56(1), pages 271-296, March.
- Joel M. Dickson & John B. Shoven, 1994. "A Stock Index Mutual Fund Without Net Capital Gains Realizations," NBER Working Papers 4717, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James M. Poterba & John B. Shoven, 2002.
"Exchange-Traded Funds: A New Investment Option for Taxable Investors,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 422-427, May.
- James M. Poterba & John B. Shoven, 2002. "Exchange Traded Funds: A New Investment Option for Taxable Investors," NBER Working Papers 8781, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Yan, An, 2006. "Leasing and Debt Financing: Substitutes or Complements?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(03), pages 709-731, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)