[We examine situations where the same fund manager simultaneously manages mutual funds and hedge funds. We refer to this as side-by-side management. We document 344 such cases involving 693 mutual funds and 538 hedge funds. Proponents of this practice argue that it is essential to hire and retain star performers. Detractors argue that the temptation for abuse is high, and the practice should be banned. Our analysis based on various performance metrics shows that side-by-side mutual fund managers significantly outperform peer funds, consistent with this privilege being granted primarily to star performers. Interestingly, side-by-side hedge fund managers are at best on par with their style category peers, casting further doubt on the idea that conflicts of interest undermine mutual fund investors. Thus, we find no evidence of welfare loss for mutual fund investors due to exploitation of conflicts of interest.]

We examine the extent to which a fund's cash flows are affected by the stellar performance of other funds in its family–and consequences of such spillovers. We show that star performance results in greater cash inflow to the fund and to other funds in its family. Moreover, families with higher variation in invetment strategies across funds are shown to be more likely to generate star performance. We argue that spillovers may induce lower ability families to pursue star-creating strategies. Consistent with our conjecture, families with high variation in investment strategies across funds significantly underperform low-variation families.

The adoption of a managed distribution policy or plan (MDP) by closed-end funds appears effective in dramatically reducing, even eliminating, fund discounts. We investigate two possible explanations: the signaling explanation proposed in the literature, that the MDP serves as a positive signal of future fund performance, and an alternative explanation based on agency costs. Our results indicate that signaling is, at best, only part of the explanation and that the evidence is generally more consistent with the agency cost hypothesis. For funds adopting aggressive payout targets of 10% (median target) and above, discounts tend to disappear, though there is no discernible improvement in NAV performance. Consistent with the agency cost hypothesis, it is often pressure from institutions/large shareholders that leads to the adoption of aggressive payout policies. Moreover, aggressive-MDPs are associated with a decrease in fund size and managerial fees. Suggestive of their activist role in MDP adoptions and/or informed trading, institutions – especially ones that are Value oriented – tend to build-up their holdings in a fund prior to the adoption of an aggressive-MDP, and liquidate their positions once the price rises.

[Does the mutual fund industry lose its best managers to hedge funds? We find that mutual funds are able to retain managers with good performance in the face of competition from a growing hedge fund industry. On the other hand, poor performers are more likely to leave the mutual fund industry. A small fraction of these poor performers find jobs with smaller and younger hedge fund companies, especially when the hedge fund industry is growing rapidly. Analogously, a small fraction of the better-performing mutual fund managers are retained by allowing them to manage a hedge fund side-by-side.]

We examine situations where the same fund manager simultaneously manages mutual funds and hedge funds. We refer to this as side-by-side management. We document 344 such cases involving 693 mutual funds and 538 hedge funds. Proponents of this practice argue that it is essential to hire and retain star performers. Detractors argue that the temptation for abuse is high, and the practice should be banned. Our analysis based on various performance metrics shows that side-by-side mutual fund managers significantly outperform peer funds, consistent with this privilege being granted primarily to star performers. Interestingly, side-by-side hedge fund managers are at best on par with their style category peers, casting further doubt on the idea that conflicts of interest undermine mutual fund investors. Thus, we find no evidence of welfare loss for mutual fund investors due to exploitation of conflicts of interest.

We study a significant innovation with widespread consequences for the mutual fund industry: the introduction of multiple-class funds that give investors a choice among alternative load and fee structures. The transition to a multiple-class structure represents an important step in the evolution of the mutual fund industry. It also provides a well-controlled setting for research on the structure of funds, on investor clienteles and their impact on fund performance and, more generally, about the manner in which financial innovations tend to be adopted. We develop a simple model of a fund's decision on whether and when to introduce new classes and empirically investigate the model's predictions that: (a) Funds with more skilled management, less sensitivity of flows to performance, smaller size, higher existing loads and membership in larger families are better positioned to benefit and, therefore, more likely to switch to a multiple-class structure earlier; (b) The new classes increase the level and volatility of fund inflow by attracting investors with short and uncertain investment horizons – which, in turn, can negatively impact fund performance. Our empirical results are generally supportive of the model's predictions.

We investigate whether potential pension contracting benefits lead institutions that provide pension services to acquire ownership blocks in firms and the implications of such blockholdings on the firms' corporate governance. We use the 2006 Pension Protection Act, which expanded pension participation in certain states, as a quasi‐exogenous shock and find an increase in block ownership by pension‐providing institutions in firms with substantial operations in affected states. Further, we find that the acquisition of a large block increases the likelihood that the institution will provide future pension services to the firm. With regard to corporate governance, we find that the acquisition of large pension blockholdings is associated with higher CEO pay and lower CEO turnover following poor financial performance. However, contrary to the prediction of the private benefits hypothesis, we do not find consistent evidence that large pension blockholdings are associated with declining firm profitability, suggesting that pension institutions are incentivized to exert monitoring to preserve the investment value of their blockholdings. Overall, our evidence is consistent with pension service institutions acquiring ownership blocks to obtain pension contracts, but our evidence does not support the prediction that they use their influence to compromise shareholder value.

We examine impediments to liquidity provision by mutual funds to insurance companies during corporate bond fire sales. We find that financial regulation and limited capital capacity significantly affect liquidity provision. Mutual funds reduced their purchase of fire-sale bonds following regulatory changes after the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Funds facing more capital constraints (proxied by smaller cash and Treasury holdings, less liquid corporate bond investments, higher redemption risk, and less active investment styles) provide less liquidity. Mutual funds actively investing in fire-sale bonds earn significant returns from liquidity provision and demonstrate superior overall skills in corporate bond investments.

We examine the extent to which a fund's cash flows are affected by the stellar performance of other funds in its family — and consequences of such spillovers. We show that star performance results in greater cash inflow to the fund and to other funds in its family. Moreover, families with higher variation in investment strategies across funds are shown to be more likely to generate star performance. We argue that spillovers may induce lower ability families to pursue star-creating strategies. Consistent with our conjecture, families with high variation in investment strategies across funds significantly underperform low-variation families.

In closed-end funds, a managed distribution policy (MDP) is a dividend commitment potentially requiring the liquidation of assets. We argue that MDPs lower managerial claims on fund assets and, when the fund is at a discount, increase shareholder value. This transfer of wealth can be rationalized by managers wishing to deter a challenge from activist shareholders through a costly proxy vote. We find strong empirical evidence that managers respond to the presence of activists using MDPs, that MDPs constitute an effective wealth transfer to shareholders, and that activists are less likely to challenge management when an MDP is in place.