Paulo Leite

This study analyzes the effects of economic policy uncertainty on the United States (US) banking sector, comparing banks operating in organized and over-the-counter markets. Using quarterly data from 2006 to 2023, we quantify the impact of monetary, tax, and financial regulatory uncertainty through the sub-indexes of the economic policy uncertainty index developed by Baker et al. (2016). We apply panel cointegration techniques to distinguish long- and short-term effects on both accounting-based and market-based measures of risk and performance. Our findings reveal a clear divergence in how banks respond to economic policy uncertainty. Market structure and regulatory intensity shape distinct and interconnected responses, with over-the-counter banks effectively monetizing uncertainty-driven credit displacement while maintaining systemic resilience.

This paper presents a comprehensive investigation into the performance of multi-asset funds investing internationally. Based on a custom-built conditional multi-factor model, which includes several bond and equity-related factors, along with time-varying betas and alphas, we show that funds in our dataset significantly underperform from 2004 to 2021. This evidence holds even on a before-fee basis, with funds investing predominantly in bonds exhibiting significantly higher alphas than funds investing predominantly in equities. Since multi-asset funds may better hedge against market downturns than equity or bond funds, given their higher asset class diversification, we also evaluate performance for crisis and non-crisis phases separately. The results show that, during market crises, international multi-asset funds perform significantly better than in non-crisis times, achieving neutral performance. However, while funds that favour bond investments perform similarly across different market phases, funds that prioritize equity investments perform significantly better during crises. Consequently, multi-asset funds with higher bond holdings can be a better option during non-crisis periods, while funds with higher equity holdings should be preferred during market downturns. This somewhat puzzling finding seems to be related to funds’ cash holdings. By providing a better understanding of the asset allocation decisions of international mutual fund managers, as well as of their impact on fund performance, this work has meaningful implications for investors.

Most mutual fund performance evaluation studies interpret fund alphas as the incremental performance of managers in relation to passive benchmark indices, which should exhibit statistically insignificant alphas. However, if these indices present significant non-zero alphas, standard (non-adjusted) fund alphas are biased. This paper investigates the impact of using benchmark-adjusted alphas to assess the performance of Portuguese-based mutual funds, investing in domestic and European equities. For the period 2000-2020, our results show that fund benchmarks exhibit significantly negative alphas, which lead to an underestimation of mutual fund performance when employing standard models. As a result, benchmark-adjusted alphas are significantly higher than unadjusted alphas for both fund categories, though the differences are larger for domestic than for European funds. We have also found that the impact of the benchmark-adjustment procedure depends on the state of markets. The domestic (European) benchmark exhibits considerably lower (higher) alphas during crisis than during non-crisis periods. During market crises, the differences between pre- and post-adjustment alphas are statistically significant only for domestic funds, whereas during non-crisis periods, both fund categories exhibit significant performance improvements. Our findings suggest that the benchmark-adjustment procedure has a higher impact when benchmark indices exhibit higher concentration.

This paper provides new evidence on the appropriateness of the Fama-French five-factor model to evaluate international equity funds’ performance. After extending this model to a conditional framework by allowing for time-varying risk and performance, the results show that funds underperformed during the 2000–2017 period. Funds investing globally and in Europe tend to invest in aggressive firms, but only the latter are exposed to firms with weak profitability. We thus conclude that although both investment and profitability factors are significant in explaining fund returns, the investment factor plays a more relevant role irrespective of the funds’ geographical area of investment.

This paper evaluates the performance of European SRI fixed-income funds domiciled in France and in Germany compared to characteristics-matched conventional funds. Fund performance is evaluated by means of conditional multi-factor models that allow for both time-varying risk and performance. The results show that SRI balanced funds perform similarly to conventional funds, whereas SRI bond funds significantly outperform their peers. The outperformance of SRI bond funds seems more related to their government (and not their corporate) bond holdings. Compared to conventional funds, SRI funds are significantly less exposed to bonds issued by the countries most affected by the Euro sovereign debt crisis, which is consistent with more conservative and long term-oriented investment strategies.

This paper evaluates the performance of a survivorship bias-free data set of Portuguese funds investing in Euro-denominated bonds by using conditional models that consider the public information available to investors when the returns are generated. We find that bond funds underperform the market significantly and by an economically relevant magnitude. This underperformance cannot be explained by the expenses they charge. Our findings support the use of conditional performance evaluation models, since we find strong evidence of both time-varying risk and performance, dependent on the slope of the term structure and the inverse relative wealth variables. We also show that survivorship bias has a significant impact on performance estimates. Furthermore, during the European debt crisis, bond fund managers performed significantly better than in non-crisis periods and were able to achieve neutral performance. This improved performance throughout the crisis seems to be related to changes in funds’ investment styles.

This paper provides the first investigation about bond mutual fund performance during recession and expansion periods separately. Based on multi‐factor performance evaluation models, results show that bond funds significantly underperform the market during both phases of the business cycle. Nevertheless, unlike equity funds, bond funds exhibit considerably higher alphas during good economic states than during market downturns. These results, however, seem entirely driven by the global financial crisis sub‐period. In contrast, during the recession associated to the Euro sovereign debt crisis, bond funds are able to accomplish neutral performance. This improved performance throughout the debt crisis seems to be related to more conservative investment strategies, which reflect an increase in managers' risk aversion.

We evaluate the impact of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis on the performance and performance persistence of a survivorship bias-free sample of bond funds from a small market, identified as one of the most affected by this event, during the 2001–2012 period. Besides avoiding data mining, we also introduce a methodological innovation in assessing bond fund performance persistence. Our results show that bond funds underperform significantly both during crisis and non-crisis periods. Besides, we find strong evidence of performance persistence, for both short- and longer-term horizons, during non-crisis periods but not during the debt crisis. In this way, the persistence phenomenon in small markets seems to occur only during non-crisis periods and this is valuable information for bond fund investors to exploit.