IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/pennin/99-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Focus? A Study of Intra-Industry Focus Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolaj Siggelkow

Abstract

While the effects of focus have been studied primarily in the context of diversification across industries, a study of focus within one industry can further our understanding of the drivers that underlie focus effects. In particular, we study the effects of focus in the mutual fund industry. We find that funds belonging to more focused fund families outperform similar funds in more diversified families. Moreover, it is the relatedness among funds within a family, rather than the mere narrowness of product offering, which is responsible for the positive focus effect. Total cash inflows into fund families are, however, negatively affected by family focus. Since focus boosts the return of individual funds but reduces the scale of the total fund family, and thereby the fees that fund families received, the interests of fund shareholders and the incentives of the owners of mutual fund families are potentially in conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolaj Siggelkow, 1998. "Why Focus? A Study of Intra-Industry Focus Effects," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 99-13, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:99-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/99/9913.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blake, Christopher R & Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J, 1993. "The Performance of Bond Mutual Funds," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 370-403, July.
    2. Rotemberg, Julio J & Saloner, Garth, 1994. "Benefits of Narrow Business Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1330-1349, December.
    3. Comment, Robert & Jarrell, Gregg A., 1995. "Corporate focus and stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 67-87, January.
    4. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1990. " Do Managerial Objectives Drive Bad Acquisitions?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 31-48, March.
    5. Takeo Hoshi & Anil Kashyap & David Scharfstein, 1991. "Corporate Structure, Liquidity, and Investment: Evidence from Japanese Industrial Groups," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 33-60.
    6. Meyer, Margaret & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1992. "Organizational Prospects, Influence Costs, and Ownership Changes," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 9-35, Spring.
    7. Elton, Edwin J, et al, 1993. "Efficiency with Costly Information: A Reinterpretation of Evidence from Managed Portfolios," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22.
    8. Brown, Stephen J & Goetzmann, William N, 1995. " Performance Persistence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 679-698, June.
    9. Chevalier, Judith & Ellison, Glenn, 1997. "Risk Taking by Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1167-1200, December.
    10. Erik R. Sirri & Peter Tufano, 1998. "Costly Search and Mutual Fund Flows," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(5), pages 1589-1622, October.
    11. Lichtenberg, Frank R., 1992. "Industrial de-diversification and its consequences for productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 427-438, August.
    12. Schmalensee, Richard, 1985. "Do Markets Differ Much?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 341-351, June.
    13. John, Kose & Ofek, Eli, 1995. "Asset sales and increase in focus," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 105-126, January.
    14. Lang, Larry H P & Stulz, Rene M, 1994. "Tobin's q, Corporate Diversification, and Firm Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1248-1280, December.
    15. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    16. David J. Teece, 2003. "Towards an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Essays In Technology Management And Policy Selected Papers of David J Teece, chapter 15, pages 419-446 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Ferris, Stephen P & Chance, Don M, 1987. " The Effect of 12b-1 Plans on Mutual Fund Expense Ratios: A Note," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1077-1082, September.
    18. Ichniowski, Casey & Shaw, Kathryn & Prennushi, Giovanna, 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 291-313, June.
    19. Brown, Stephen J, et al, 1992. "Survivorship Bias in Performance Studies," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 5(4), pages 553-580.
    20. Wernerfelt, Birger & Montgomery, Cynthia A, 1988. "Tobin's q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 246-250, March.
    21. Brown, Keith C & Harlow, W V & Starks, Laura T, 1996. " Of Tournaments and Temptations: An Analysis of Managerial Incentives in the Mutual Fund Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 85-110, March.
    22. Daley, Lane & Mehrotra, Vikas & Sivakumar, Ranjini, 1997. "Corporate focus and value creation Evidence from spinoffs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 257-281, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:wop:pennin:99-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fiupaus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.