The effects of derivative use on equity fund performance

Investing in mutual funds has become more popular than ever and the amount of money invested in mutual funds registered in Finland has hit its all-time high. Mutual funds provide a relatively low-cost method for private investors to invest in stock market and achieve diversified portfolios. In finance there is always a tradeoff between risk and return, where higher expected returns can usually be achieved only by taking higher risks. Diversifying the portfolio gets rid some of the risk but systematic risk cannot be diversified away. These risks can be managed by hedging the investments with derivatives. The use of derivatives should improve the performance of the portfolios using them compared to the funds that don’t. However, previous studies have shown that the risk exposure and return performance of derivative users does not considerably differ from nonusers. The purpose of this study is to examine how the use of derivatives affects the performance of equity funds. The funds studied were 155 equity funds registered in Finland in 2013. Empirical research was done by studying the derivative use of the funds during a 6-year period between 2008–2013. The performance of the funds was studied quantitatively by using several different performance measures used in mutual fund industry; Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio, Jensen's alpha, Sortino Ratio, M2 and Omega Ratio. The effect of derivative use on funds' performance was studied by using a dummy variable and comparing performance measures of derivative-users and nonusers. The differences in performance measures between the two groups were analyzed with statistical tests. The hypothesis was that funds' derivative use should improve their performance relative to the funds that don't use them. The results of this study are in line with previous studies that state that the use of derivatives does not improve mutual funds' performance. When performance was measured with Jensen's alpha, funds that did not use derivatives performed better than the ones that used them. When measured with other performance measures, the results didn’t differ between two groups.

Impact of Product-harm Crisis on Brand Equity: the Moderating Role of Corporate Social Performance

There is an increasing amount of product-harm crisis in the past few years; and the impact of a product-harm crisis becomes more and more influential due to the high increasing speed of globalization. And it is believed that the negative damages to a firm leading to a loss of the intangible assets is bigger than other costs such as the cost of the product recall. Brand equity is a very important and valuable intangible asset for a firm; and it is particularly vulnerable during the crisis. And CSP (CSP) is a hot concept associated with product-harm crisis and brand equity. The aim of this study is to understand how product-harm crisis influences by simultaneously involving CSP as a moderator in a consumer-based level. An experimental study was conducted through an online questionnaire among 198 students in Finland. The questionnaire mainly assessed the consumers’ attitudes towards CSP and brand before/after a fictional product-harm crisis. The results shows that the brand equity was negatively related to the product-harm crisis. And the extent level of crisis’s severity was positively related to the loss of the brand equity; whereas, acknowledged blame was more useful to compensate the loss of brand equity in the low-severity crisis. CSP acted as a moderator role which could compensate the loss of brand equity caused by the product-harm crisis. Managerial implications are also offered for crisis managers, brand managers, and CSR managers.

THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.

THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.