This paper examines the volatility timing of US mutual funds by controlling the false discovery rate to find out how many funds are truly countercyclical (procyclical) timing funds. Empirical results show that, given the whole universe of our sample funds, the percentages of countercyclical and procyclical volatility timing funds are about equal. We also find that while the standard approach, which simply counts the number of significant positive (negative) timing coefficients, does not incorporate false discoveries in volatility timing, it provides quite accurate volatility timing results. Finally, we find that the performance measures for an equally weighted portfolio of procyclical timing funds are greater than for an equally weighted portfolio of countercyclical timing funds in the in-sample test, consistent with our expectation that procyclical timers earn higher returns because they take on more risk. However, the countercyclical timing portfolio outperforms the procyclical timing portfolio in the out-of-sample test.

This paper reexamines, at a range of investment horizons, the asymmetric dependence between hedge fund returns and market returns. Given the current availability of hedge fund data, the joint distribution of longer-horizon returns is extracted from the dynamics of monthly returns using the filtered historical simulation; we then apply the method based on copula theory to uncover the dependence structure therein. While the direction of asymmetry remains unchanged, the magnitude of asymmetry is attenuated considerably as the investment horizon increases. Similar horizon effects also occur on the tail dependence. Our findings suggest that nonlinearity in hedge fund exposure to market risk is more short term in nature, and that hedge funds provide higher benefits of diversification, the longer the horizon.

This paper examines the impact of both socially responsible (SR) and conventional entrant funds on SR incumbent funds using an overlap in portfolio holdings to measure the impact of competition in the US mutual fund industry. This paper’s findings indicate that over the past decade the increase in competition from SR entrants has been associated with an increase in fees but not in capital flow. Moreover, our results show that the increase in the number of SR fund entrants does not have a negative impact on fund performance. This finding implies that despite the significant increase in the number of SR funds entering the market, open and free competition fosters the performance of SR fund participants. Our study concludes that despite the recent growth in the number of SR funds, the SR mutual fund market does not exhibit the key features of a competitive market.