펀드규모가 커지면 대량거래가 많아지고 이에 따라 유동성비용 등 소규모펀드에서는 나타나지 않았던 거래비용이 발생할 수 있다. 대형펀드의 펀드매니저들이 거래비용을 줄이기 위하여 기존의 펀드운영전략을 수정한다면 이에 따라 펀드성과에 부정적인 영향이 발생할 수 있다. 본 연구는 펀드규모가 커짐에 따라 나타날 수 있는 거래비용 및 이러한 거래비용을 회피하려는 노력이 성과에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 실증분석하였다.
총체적인 분석의 결과에서는 펀드의 대형화에 따르는 거래비용의 유의한 증가 양상을 발견하지 못했으나 펀드를 투자스타일과 선호하는 보유종목별 스타일로 세분하여 분석한 결과에서는 가치주 투자 위주의 펀드와 중소형주 또는 혼합주를 주로 보유한 펀드의 경우 자금유입으로 인한 대형화에 따라 거래비용이 유의하게 증가함을 발견할 수 있었다.
또한 펀드 대형화에 따른 거래비용을 회피하기 위한 실행수단에 대한 분석에 있어서는 총체적인 분석 시 대형주 보유율을 줄이고 신규종목을 추가하는 등의 방향성을 볼 수 있었고, 다시 펀드의 규모별로 세분하여 분석한 결과에서는 대규모 펀드일수록 대형화에 따르는 거래비용의 체증을 회피하기 위해 위와 같은 운용방법을 실행하는 현상을 유의하게 관찰 할 수 있었다.
이에 대한 실무적 해석은 장기적으로 펀드의 대형화가 진전됨에 따라 주식종목은 포트폴리오에 지속적으로 추가되어 펀드매니저의 주식선택능력은 “평준화” 되고 이에 따라 펀드의 인덱스화 성격이 나타날 수 있다는 것이며 펀드의 인덱스화 현상은 장기적인 펀드성과에 방해가 될 수 있다는 것을 의미한다.
In Korea, many people are experiencing the era of fund-capitalism. We think this is mainly due to the flooding of global capital into korean capital market, after the complete openning of capital market followed by foreign currency crisis.
The portion of foreign capital in korean capital market indicates 51.2% of mutual funds, 21.0% of bank, security brokerage company, insurance company, 9.8% of pension and fund company, 2.3% of hedge fund company, 14.9% of etc, 29.1% totally, by 2005.
Fund industry is expanding the its’ volume and category mainly with the tendency of low interest rate by government since 2002, growth of national pension service and retirement annuty followed by acceleration of old age quake, and growth of indirect investment market. Total volume of fund industry indicates 130 trillion won by mar. 2008 with 129 trillion won net asset value, 46 trillion won equity fund by 2006, with one of them 4 trillion won.
So, many researchers and practitioners are interested with growing fund industry especially with the relation of volume and performances. But it is not easy for us to conclude whether size of fund affects the performance positively or negatively. Elton, Gruber and Blake, 1996, Indro et al., 1999, Jan and Hung, 2004 insisted and testified that bigger funds have advantage to get better performances. Grinbaltt and Titman, 1992, Dahlquist and Soderlind, 1999, vice versa. In Korea Suh et al., 2008 testified the non linear relation of size and performance of funds.
Many research have insisted the economy of scale as fund grows. They tried to find the evidences from declining unitary transaction, investigating, administration cost as fund grows, and this will help funds make better performance. Other researchers tried to find the evidences of increasing unitary cost of transaction from market impact within block deal, information asymmetry, increasing buy-sell spread etc. And with this, they try to assert fund will experience diseconomy of scale.
In this study, we are trying to find the evidence of non linear relation between size and performance of fund, from well-known phenomena like these.
Firstly, managers of large fund know that block deal can cause higher transaction cost as fund grows larger.
Secondly, they can try to postpone or not to execute transaction, And they can change the ingredients of their basket of portfolio with blue-chip stock or new entry.
Thirdly, not doing transaction or change of portfolio can be harmful to the performance of fund.
We gathered 794 total samples of fund operation reports, and these are from stock funds of Apr. 2004 to Jun. 2006 period in korea.
With market-micro structure analysis, we tried to find and measure the explicit and implicit transaction cost within turn-over rate, and to verify the nonlinear relation between size and performance of funds.
Our findings are as follows;
Firstly, fund size can make a large transaction cost from block trading. Fund managers may cause a negative effect on fund performance because of an opportunity cost such as preventing from market impact cost. We made an empirical research to find factors to make a transaction cost and could find 2 major results.
Secondly, analyzing from grouping funds with operating style, value based investing funds and middle size company preferring funds experienced accelerating increase of transaction cost significantly. This means that fund managers have considerations of reducing cost by style of funds.
Thirdly, when we divided funds with measure like preferred size of company by funds and number of companies those funds hold, fund managers were seemed to decrease weight of large companies and to invite new companies into portfolio baskets of funds as size of funds become larger. We translate these phenomena as various effort of fund managers to decrease transaction cost of their funds.
Empirically, these results made us expect to cause funds to become normalized index funds in the long-run as size and portfolio baskets of funds grows, because the ability of fund managers to pick a undervalued companies become normalized.