Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Excess volatility and closed‐end fund discounts
View through CrossRef
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the conditions under which discount risk leads to closed‐end funds trading at a discount.Design/methodology/approachA model of investor portfolio choice is developed in which investors face proportional fees for holding managed funds but fixed transaction fees for purchasing other risky assets. The conditions under which investors will hold shares in closed‐end funds are derived.FindingsIt is shown that, with fixed transaction costs in the market for risky assets, investors with wealth below a certain threshold will hold pooled index funds that charge a proportional fee, rather than the market portfolio chosen by wealthier investors. If a portfolio of closed‐end index funds yields greater volatility of returns to investors than open‐end index funds (i.e. displays “excess volatility”), and charges the same fees, the closed‐end funds need to trade at a discount in equilibrium to attract buyers. The same applies to actively managed funds if higher fees fully reflect extra expected returns from the managers' skill.Practical implicationsA primary determinant of closed‐end fund discounts is discount volatility and co‐movement across funds.Originality/valueUntil now it has been argued that discount risk needs to be systematic (correlated with market returns) to be priced. The evidence that discount risk is systematic is weak. There is strong empirical evidence of excess volatility and co‐movement of discounts across closed‐end funds, which in our model are a sufficient condition for funds to trade at a discount, under plausible assumptions. This model thus provides a stronger argument that discount risk explains why discounts exist.
Title: Excess volatility and closed‐end fund discounts
Description:
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the conditions under which discount risk leads to closed‐end funds trading at a discount.
Design/methodology/approachA model of investor portfolio choice is developed in which investors face proportional fees for holding managed funds but fixed transaction fees for purchasing other risky assets.
The conditions under which investors will hold shares in closed‐end funds are derived.
FindingsIt is shown that, with fixed transaction costs in the market for risky assets, investors with wealth below a certain threshold will hold pooled index funds that charge a proportional fee, rather than the market portfolio chosen by wealthier investors.
If a portfolio of closed‐end index funds yields greater volatility of returns to investors than open‐end index funds (i.
e.
displays “excess volatility”), and charges the same fees, the closed‐end funds need to trade at a discount in equilibrium to attract buyers.
The same applies to actively managed funds if higher fees fully reflect extra expected returns from the managers' skill.
Practical implicationsA primary determinant of closed‐end fund discounts is discount volatility and co‐movement across funds.
Originality/valueUntil now it has been argued that discount risk needs to be systematic (correlated with market returns) to be priced.
The evidence that discount risk is systematic is weak.
There is strong empirical evidence of excess volatility and co‐movement of discounts across closed‐end funds, which in our model are a sufficient condition for funds to trade at a discount, under plausible assumptions.
This model thus provides a stronger argument that discount risk explains why discounts exist.
Related Results
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
On Volatility, Outliers, and Uncertainty
On Volatility, Outliers, and Uncertainty
This dissertation is composed of three loosely related chapters, all of which are empirical.In Chapter 1, I examine whether expectations are formed in a systematically different ma...
Hedonic product discounts: When is the price right?
Hedonic product discounts: When is the price right?
Purpose
– The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of price discounts on products perceived to provide hedonic value vs those perceived to evoke displea...
Forecasting Volatility
Forecasting Volatility
This monograph puts together results from several lines of research that I have pursued over a period of years, on the general topic of volatility forecasting for option pricing ap...
The Impact of Interest Rate Volatility on Stock Returns Volatility: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan Stock Exchange
The Impact of Interest Rate Volatility on Stock Returns Volatility: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan Stock Exchange
Apprehension pertaining to Stock return volatility always has been producing the appreciable significance in the various current research works and it has been lucrative to many re...
Estimating Stochastic Volatility under the Assumption of Stochastic Volatility of Volatility
Estimating Stochastic Volatility under the Assumption of Stochastic Volatility of Volatility
We propose novel nonparametric estimators for stochastic volatility and the volatility of volatility. In doing so, we relax the assumption of a constant volatility of volatility an...
Crude oil arbitrage and momentum trading strategies with targeting volatility by using Large Language Models
Crude oil arbitrage and momentum trading strategies with targeting volatility by using Large Language Models
This paper is devoted to the execution of crude oil arbitrage and momentum strategies with volatility targeting by using Large Language Models (LLM), comparing efficiency and profi...
The excess volatility puzzle explained by financial noise amplification from endogenous feedbacks
The excess volatility puzzle explained by financial noise amplification from endogenous feedbacks
The arguably most important paradox of financial economics – the excess volatility puzzle – first identified by Robert Shiller in 1981 states that asset prices fluctuate much more ...

