This is the first paper systematically calculating, testing and explaining different definitions of the survivorship bias in fund performance. We document that the survival-performance-relation is stronger for small funds and we find significant under-performance of non-survivors but no significant out-performance of new funds. Survivorship bias is still a problem as well in other fields of research, e.g., in countries where survivorship bias-free data is not available and because certain methods require truncated data. This paper provides guidance on how to deal with and reduce survivorship bias in empirical studies.

This paper studies the early exercise behavior of individual investors in non-tradable German governmental putable bonds. Analyzing holding and exercise decisions of more than 220,000 individual investors at a single-account level over 13 years, our major findings are: (i) Individual investors use their early exercise right predominantly at times that are not optimal according to standard option pricing theory. (ii) Only very few attractive exercise opportunities are exploited over time. (iii) Both exercises and failure to exercise differ significantly among investor groups, are related to their personal characteristics as well as product characteristics and environmental circumstances, and are subject to cognitive biases. They tend to be persistent over time on the investor level. (iv) The demand by investors for liquidity and financial flexibility is a more important motive for investment and exercise than performance seeking.

This is the first paper analyzing the impact of index momentum factors on the performance of international and global equity funds. Extending an international, index-based version of the Fama and French (1993) three-factor model by adding the factors of country momentum and sector momentum, we find that more than 50% of funds exhibit significant exposure to at least one of these factors. Including both new factors in performance evaluation clearly impacts results when analyzing (i) the risk-adjusted performance, (ii) the performance persistence of funds, and (iii) luck versus skill in the cross-section of funds. Our main results are robust against models which additionally cover a stock-based momentum factor as well as single country, regional and sector factors.

Based on comprehensive regulatory data on equity mutual fund option use from the SEC's N-SAR filings, we are the first to present consistent evidence that equity funds' option use generates higher risk-adjusted performance. We further show that this is a direct effect of option use and not an indirect effect of other fund characteristics. Option use also directly results in lower systematic risk, as funds show significantly lower market betas during periods of options usage. Finally, mutual funds use options mainly for hedging as they primarily use protective puts and covered calls. These results are independent of known phenomena, such as the low beta anomaly, and robust to tests for endogeneity and a novel 5-factor model including an investable option strategy factor (IOS). Overall, our findings show that mutual fund option use is beneficial to investors and does not pose risk to the financial system as feared by the SEC. Our results are thus important for investors as well as regulators.

This study seeks to determine whether mutual fund decarbonization affects the stock prices of divested firms and contributes to the reduction of these firms’ carbon emissions. Using a new methodology to identify equity mutual funds’ decarbonization trades, we calculate a metric of decarbonization selling pressure (DSP) on stocks. Controlling for endogeneity and selection bias, we find that high DSP sustainably pressures stock prices downwards. Furthermore, we find that divested firms experiencing a stock price decline subsequently reduce their carbon emissions compared to non-divested firms. This finding is consistent with theoretical predictions. Various tested alternative explanations, such as shareholder intervention and financial selling pressure, cannot diminish these results. Overall, our findings support the divestment movement's hope that a critical mass of investors is able to reduce carbon emissions. Short presentation English version: https://youtu.be/dorMMn2BBn4, German version: https://youtu.be/i3r30iRbtI8.

This paper presents the first analysis of open-end leverage certificates on the German market. The major innovations of these certificates are twofold. First, issuers announce a price-setting formula according to which they are willing to buy and sell the certificates over time. Second, the product’s lifetime is potentially endless. Our main findings are that the price-setting formula is (i) designed to strongly favor the issuer and (ii) is consistent with the main outcome of the ‘life cycle hypothesis’ for structured financial products [Stoimenov, P.A., Wilkens, S., 2005. Are structured products ‘fairly’ priced? An analysis of the German market for equity-linked instruments. Journal of Banking and Finance 29, 2971–2993]. (iii) This holds for different product features and also in the presence of issuers’ credit risk and jump risk in the underlying.

We examine diseconomies of scale for two different investment approaches: quantitative and fundamental. Using separate account (SA) data where the investment approach is self-identified, we find that fundamental SAs exhibit greater diseconomies of scale than quantitative SAs. Looking at liquidity costs, we find that quantitative SAs hold more diversified portfolios of higher liquidity stocks than fundamental SAs, thereby reducing their expected liquidity costs. We also find that consistent with lower information processing/hierarchy costs, the speed of information diffusion is higher for quant SAs. Accounting for these differences helps to explain the differences in diseconomies of scale.

This paper presents the first theoretical model of the profit maximizing price-setting policy for the issuers of exchange-traded retail certificates. Unlike previous theoretical microstructure models, the market considered is unique in that the market makers do not face significant inventory costs or risk from informed traders. The model derives the time structure of the optimal markups over a certificate’s fair theoretical value and its relationship with optimal spreads, unhedgeable risk faced by the issuer and investors’ buying and selling decisions. It shows that (i) the optimal markups decrease inter-temporally, (ii) issuers adjust the markups according to investors’ demand, (iii) unhedgeable risk results in higher markups and influences their time structure, (iv) the markups and the spread are negatively related. Using data from the German market for leverage certificates, we find strong empirical support for the model-derived hypotheses, except for (iv). We find spreads exhibit little variation and this suggests that markups and spreads are not substitute profit sources for issuers in this market.

This paper explores the extent to which interest risk exposure is priced into bank margins. Our contribution to the literature is twofold: First, we extend the Ho and Saunders (1981) model to capture interest rate risk and expected returns from maturity transformation. Banks price interest risk according to their individual exposure separately in loan and deposit intermediation fees, but reduce (increase) these charges for loans (deposits) when positive excess holding period returns from long-term exposures are expected. Second, we test the model-derived hypotheses not only for the commonly investigated net interest margin but also for interest income and expense margins separately in a sample encompassing the German universal banking sector between 2000 and 2009. Our results suggest that banks price their individual interest rate risk and corresponding expected excess holding period returns via the asset side into the net interest margin. For liabilities, we find that interest rate risk exposure is only priced in by smaller, local banks.

This paper examines the choices of retail investors in the market for structured financial products with a focus on implicit and explicit pricing components. We evaluate more than 72,000 single stock discount certificates on a daily basis from 2004 through 2008. The certificates are quoted an average of 0.58% above their fair value before the financial crisis, increasing to 1.24% during 2008. Although credit risk explains a major part (39%) of the certificates’ overpricing, we find that issuer default risk does not have any influence on investors’ product choices. Instead, retail investors are strongly influenced by irrational factors such as issuer and product familiarity. Finally, investors are found to make poor product choices (in terms of bid/ask spreads and markups over fair value), resulting in significant losses.