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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Frazer Institute news release, July 9, 2008, page 1.
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
Ashby N, Sobel R (2008) Income inequality and economic freedom in the U.S. states. Public Choice 134:329–346
Bailey W, Lim J (1992) Evaluating the diversification of new country funds. J Portf Manage 18:74–80
Baltagi BH (1995) Econometric analysis of panel data. Wiley, New York
Barker D, Loughran T (2007) The geography of S&P 500 stock returns. J Behav Finance 8:177–190
Bodurtha JN, Kim D, Lee CMC (1995) Closed-end country funds and U.S. market sentiment. Rev Financ Stud 8:879–918
Bonser-Neal C, Brauer G, Neal R, Wheatley S (1990) International investment restrictions and closed-end country fund prices. J Finance 45:523–547
Brown GW (1999) Volatility, sentiment, and noise traders. Financ Anal J 55:82–90
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
Choi JJ, Lee I (1996) Market segmentation and the valuation of closed-end country funds. Rev Quant Finance Acc 7(1):45–63
Chowdhury AR (1994) The behavior of closed-end country fund prices in the Asian NIEs. Appl Econ Lett 1:219–222
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
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
Fama E, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33:3–53
Feroz E, Wilson E (1992) Market segmentation and the association between municipal financial disclosure and net interest costs. Account Rev 67:480–495
Frankel JA, Schmukler SL (2000) Country funds and asymmetric information. Int J Financ Econ 5:177–195
Gasbarro D, Johnson RD, Zumwalt JK (2003) Evidence on the mean-reverting tendencies of closed-end fund discounts. Financ Rev 38:273–291
Gaspar J, Massa M (2007) Local ownership as private information: evidence on the monitoring-liquidity trade-off. J Financ Econ 83:751–792
Huberman G (2001) Familiarity breeds investment. Rev Financ Stud 14:659–680
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
Jones S, Stroup M (2010) Closed-end country fund premiums and economic freedom. Appl Financ Econ 20:1639–1649
Karabegovic A, McMahon F (2008) Economic freedom of North American: 2008 annual report (Canadian edition). The Fraser Institute, Vancouver
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
Kidwell D, Koch T (1983) Market segmentation and the term structure of municipal yields. J Money Credit Bank 15:40–55
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
Kreft S, Sobel R (2005) Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom. Cato J 25:595–616
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
Lee C, Shleifer A, Thaler R (1991) Investor sentiment and the closed-end fund puzzle. J Finance 46:75–109
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
Patro DK (2005) Stock market liberalization and emerging market country fund premiums. J Bus 78:135–168
Pennathur AK, Delcoure N, Anderson D (2002) Diversification benefits of ishares and closed-end country funds. J Financ Res 25:541–557
Pontiff J (1995) Closed-end fund premia and returns: implications for financial market equilibrium. J Financ Econ 37:341–370
Pontiff J (1996) Costly arbitrage: evidence from closed-end funds. Q J Econ 111:1135–1151
Richard JE, Wiggins JB (2000) The information content of closed-end country fund discounts. Financ Serv Rev 9:171–181
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
Size of Government
-
a.
General Government Consumption Expenditures as a Percent of State GDP
-
b.
Transfers and Subsidies as a Percent of State GDP
-
a.
-
2.
Takings and Discriminatory Actions
-
a.
Total Government Revenue from Own Sources as a Percent of State GDP
-
b.
Top Marginal Income Tax Rates and Relevant Income Threshold
-
c.
Indirect Taxation as a Percent of State GDP
-
d.
Sales Taxes as a Percent of State GDP
-
a.
-
3.
Labor Market Freedoms
-
a.
Minimum Wage Legislation
-
b.
Government Employment as a Percent of Total State Employment
-
c.
Union Density
-
a.
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:
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
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-011-9174-y