IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pacfin/v83y2024ics0927538x23002986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leaving the (fund) gate ajar: Investor protection or marketing ploy?

Author

Listed:
  • Hu, Cecilia Wei
  • Lam, Peter
  • Lee, Adrian D.

Abstract

Using a sample of active equity funds in China, we explore for the first time mutual funds that impose discretionary inflow restrictions (gates) on investors. Contrary to managers' claim, we find no compelling evidence that inflow gates serve to protect investor interests. Despite their superior past performance, inflow-restricted funds exhibit a significant decline in subsequent returns. In addition, funds tilt toward a riskier investment strategy when a gate is in place. Our analyses reveal that partly-closed gates further exacerbate investors' chasing of past returns, attracting extra flows and locking in more retail investors. Overall, we suggest that leaving the fund gate ajar to investors appears to be more of a marketing ploy than a form of investor protection. Our findings carry important implications for mutual fund investors, asset managers, and policy makers alike.

Suggested Citation

  • Hu, Cecilia Wei & Lam, Peter & Lee, Adrian D., 2024. "Leaving the (fund) gate ajar: Investor protection or marketing ploy?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:pacfin:v:83:y:2024:i:c:s0927538x23002986
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927538X23002986
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102227?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mutual funds; Inflow gate; Inflow restrictions; Fund marketing; Retail investors; Emerging fund market;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:pacfin:v:83:y:2024:i:c:s0927538x23002986. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pacfin .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.