Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1005426
 
 

Citations (11)



 
 

Footnotes (210)



 


 



Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry: Evidence and Implications for Policy


John C. Coates, IV


Harvard Law School

R. Glenn Hubbard


Columbia Business School - Finance and Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

August 2007

Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 592

Abstract:     
Since 1960 the mutual fund industry has grown from 160 funds and $18 billion in assets under management to over 8,000 funds with $10.4 trillion in assets. Yet critics - including Yale Chief Investment Officer David Swensen, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer - call for more fund regulation, claiming that competition has not protected investors from excessive fees. Starting in 2003, the number of class action suits against fund advisors increased sharply, and, consistent with critics' views, some courts have excluded or treated skeptically evidence of competition and comparable fees of other funds. Skepticism about fund competition dates to the 1960s, when the SEC accepted the view that market forces fail to constrain advisory fees, in part because fund boards rarely fire advisors. In this article, we show that economic theory, empirical evidence, and careful analysis of the laws and institutions that shape mutual funds refute this view. Fund critics overlook the most salient characteristic of a mutual fund: redeemable shares. While boards rarely fire advisors, fund investors may fire advisors at any time by redeeming shares and switching into other investments. Industry concentration is low, new entry is common, barriers to entry are low, and empirical studies - including new evidence presented in this article - show higher advisory fees significantly reduce fund market shares, and so constrain fees. Fund performance is consistent with competition exerting a strong disciplinary force on funds and fees. Our findings lead us to reject the critics' views in favor of the legal framework established by §36(b) of the Investment Company Act and the lead case interpreting that law (the Gartenberg decision), while suggesting Gartenberg is best interpreted to allow the introduction of evidence regarding competition between funds.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 68

Keywords: mutual funds, investment companies, shareholder litigation, advisory fees

JEL Classification: D4, G18, G2, K22, K23, L1

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 13, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Coates, IV, John C. and Hubbard, R. Glenn, Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry: Evidence and Implications for Policy (August 2007). Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 592. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1005426 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1005426

Contact Information

John C. Coates (Contact Author)
Harvard Law School ( email )
1575 Massachusetts
Hauser 406
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Robert Glenn Hubbard
Columbia Business School - Finance and Economics ( email )
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ghubbard

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 5,495
Downloads: 1,177
Download Rank: 9,035
Citations:  11
Footnotes:  210

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.453 seconds