Skip to main content
Log in

Economic freedom and the mispricing of single-state municipal bond closed-end funds

  • Published:
Journal of Economics and Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Economic Freedom of North America Index (EFI) is a measure of the state-level institutional characteristics that promote economic activity. We use this index as a proxy for the degree of local market segmentation and test the hypothesis that single-state, municipal bond closed-end fund mispricing can be partially explained by a state’s EFI value. Using panel data analysis we find that EFI is significant in explaining observed variability in fund mispricing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Frazer Institute news release, July 9, 2008, page 1.

  2. See Bodurtha et al. (1995), Richard and Wiggins (2000), and Lee et al. (1991) who provide evidence that closed-end fund mispricing is a function of investor sentiment, whereas Elton et al. (1998), Kramer and Smith (1998), and Chan et al. (2005) reject investor sentiment as an explanatory variable.

  3. Two alternative measures of investor sentiment were tested. The first was an index constructed as an equally weighted portfolio of the premiums of the single-state municipal bond closed-end funds from the Thomson InvestmentView database used in this study (Patro 2005; Dimson and Minio-Kozerski 2002). The second was the standard deviation of the AAII bull-bear spread index. The un-tabulated results using these alternative measures were qualitatively similar to those reported in this paper.

References

  • Arnaud A (1983) Investment trusts explained. Woodhead-Faulkner

  • Ashby N (2007) Economic freedom and migration flows between the U.S. states. South Econ J 73:677–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby N, Sobel R (2008) Income inequality and economic freedom in the U.S. states. Public Choice 134:329–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey W, Lim J (1992) Evaluating the diversification of new country funds. J Portf Manage 18:74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH (1995) Econometric analysis of panel data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker D, Loughran T (2007) The geography of S&P 500 stock returns. J Behav Finance 8:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodurtha JN, Kim D, Lee CMC (1995) Closed-end country funds and U.S. market sentiment. Rev Financ Stud 8:879–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonser-Neal C, Brauer G, Neal R, Wheatley S (1990) International investment restrictions and closed-end country fund prices. J Finance 45:523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GW (1999) Volatility, sentiment, and noise traders. Financ Anal J 55:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan J, Jain R, Xia Y (2005) Market segmentation, liquidity spillover, and closed-end country fund discounts. Working Paper, Temple University

  • Chiang TC, Kim D, Lee E (2006) Country-fund discounts and risk: evidence from stock market volatility and macroeconomic volatility. J Econ Bus 58:303–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi JJ, Lee I (1996) Market segmentation and the valuation of closed-end country funds. Rev Quant Finance Acc 7(1):45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury AR (1994) The behavior of closed-end country fund prices in the Asian NIEs. Appl Econ Lett 1:219–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crone T (2003) Consistent economic indexes for the 50 states. Working Paper No. 02-7/R, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

  • Crone T (2006) What a new set of indexes tells us about state and national business cycles. Business Review, Q1, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, 11–24

  • Crone T, Clayton-Matthews A (2005) Consistent economic indexes for the 50 states. Rev Econ Stat 87:593–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimson E, Minio-Kozerski C (2002) A factor model of the closed-end fund discount. Working Paper. London Business School

  • Elton E, Gruber J, Busse JA (1998) Do investors care about sentiment? J Bus 71:477–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama E, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33:3–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feroz E, Wilson E (1992) Market segmentation and the association between municipal financial disclosure and net interest costs. Account Rev 67:480–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel JA, Schmukler SL (2000) Country funds and asymmetric information. Int J Financ Econ 5:177–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasbarro D, Johnson RD, Zumwalt JK (2003) Evidence on the mean-reverting tendencies of closed-end fund discounts. Financ Rev 38:273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaspar J, Massa M (2007) Local ownership as private information: evidence on the monitoring-liquidity trade-off. J Financ Econ 83:751–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman G (2001) Familiarity breeds investment. Rev Financ Stud 14:659–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain R, Xia Y, Wu MQ (2004) Illiquidity and closed-end country fund discounts. Working Paper, Temple University

  • Johnson G, Schneeweis T, Dinning W (1993) Closed-end country funds: exchange rate and investment risk. Financ Anal J 49(6):74–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones S, Stroup M (2010) Closed-end country fund premiums and economic freedom. Appl Financ Econ 20:1639–1649

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabegovic A, McMahon F (2008) Economic freedom of North American: 2008 annual report (Canadian edition). The Fraser Institute, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell D, Koch T (1982) The behavior of the interest rate differential between tax-exempt revenue and general obligation bonds: a test of risk preferences and market segmentation. J Finance 37:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell D, Koch T (1983) Market segmentation and the term structure of municipal yields. J Money Credit Bank 15:40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer C, Smith RT (1998) The Mexican crisis and the behavior of country fund discounts: renewing the puzzle of closed-end fund pricing. Int J Theor Appl Finance 1:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft S, Sobel R (2005) Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom. Cato J 25:595–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambson V, McQueen G, Slade B (2004) Do out-of-state buyers pay more for real estate? An examination of anchoring-induced bias and search costs. Real Estate Econ 32:85–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Shleifer A, Thaler R (1991) Investor sentiment and the closed-end fund puzzle. J Finance 46:75–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzler D (2005) Liquidity, liquidity risk and the closed-end fund discount. Working Paper, University of Cincinnati

  • Nishiotis GP (2004) Do indirect investment barriers contribute to capital market segmentation? J Financ Quant Anal 39:613–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patro DK (2005) Stock market liberalization and emerging market country fund premiums. J Bus 78:135–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennathur AK, Delcoure N, Anderson D (2002) Diversification benefits of ishares and closed-end country funds. J Financ Res 25:541–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontiff J (1995) Closed-end fund premia and returns: implications for financial market equilibrium. J Financ Econ 37:341–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontiff J (1996) Costly arbitrage: evidence from closed-end funds. Q J Econ 111:1135–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard JE, Wiggins JB (2000) The information content of closed-end country fund discounts. Financ Serv Rev 9:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Kyle Jones.

Appendices

Appendix A: Economic freedom of the states index

The Economic Freedom of the States Index (EFI) is an aggregate measure of economic variables reflecting the overall prevalence of those institutional characteristics thought to preserve individual freedoms in the private marketplace and promote economic prosperity in society. The value of this index for each state ranges from 0 (least economic freedom) to 10 (most economic freedom). The index is comprised of nine different economic measures grouped into three main categories:

  1. 1.

    Size of Government

    1. a.

      General Government Consumption Expenditures as a Percent of State GDP

    2. b.

      Transfers and Subsidies as a Percent of State GDP

  2. 2.

    Takings and Discriminatory Actions

    1. a.

      Total Government Revenue from Own Sources as a Percent of State GDP

    2. b.

      Top Marginal Income Tax Rates and Relevant Income Threshold

    3. c.

      Indirect Taxation as a Percent of State GDP

    4. d.

      Sales Taxes as a Percent of State GDP

  3. 3.

    Labor Market Freedoms

    1. a.

      Minimum Wage Legislation

    2. b.

      Government Employment as a Percent of Total State Employment

    3. c.

      Union Density

The formulae for calculating the values of each of the nine subcategory areas, as well as the mathematical aggregation methodology for computing the index, can be found in Karabegovic and McMahon (2006). More information can be found at: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/3153.aspx

Appendix B: Philadelphia FRB state coincidence index

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces a consistent set of State Coincident Indexes (SCI) on a monthly basis for each of the 50 states. The data and information are available from their website at: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/coincident/.

Crone and Clayton-Matthews (2005) use a dynamic single-factor model to create state-level indexes, which estimates the following set of equations:

$$ \Delta {x_t} = \alpha + \beta (L)\Delta {s_t} + {\mu_t} $$
(1)
$$ D(L){\mu_t} = {\varepsilon_t} $$
(2)
$$ \phi (L)\Delta {s_t} = \delta + {\eta_t} $$
(3)

where x t is the logarithm of the observed variable in period t, s t is the logarithm of the state variable to be estimated (i.e., the common factor), and L represents the lag operator. The state variable, s t , in Eq. 3 represents the underlying state of the economy and follows an autoregressive process. Crone and Clayton-Matthews (2005) use nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average) to develop a consistent set of state-level indexes. Standardized logged differences of the indicators and state variable are used to estimate (1) and (3). The trend of the index is set to the trend of the respective state gross domestic product (GDP).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, S.K., Stroup, M.D. Economic freedom and the mispricing of single-state municipal bond closed-end funds. J Econ Finan 37, 173–187 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-011-9174-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-011-9174-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation