Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analysis of closed-end funds discounts viewed from a lack of redemption perspective

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the behavior of discounts for an extensive sample of U.S. closed-end funds (CEF) undergoing open-ending. Share prices increase and discounts reduce at the time of announcement. The 2-day abnormal return is approximately one half of the pre-announcement discount. We test and find support for the investor sentiment, transaction costs, and portfolio liquidity hypotheses controlling for fund characteristics, tax liability, and dividends yield. The role of investor sentiment declines following the announcement. We decompose the pre-announcement discount into its structural and idiosyncratic parts, and find that there is a greater reduction of the idiosyncratic part of the discount at the time of announcement. The correlation between discount of CEF undergoing open-ending and that of an index of similar funds declines as the CEF nears open-ending.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CEF funds are invested in a portfolio of assets and shareholders are entitled to future cash flows generated from the portfolio. Investors cannot directly sell (buy) the fund shares back to (from) investment companies but can trade shares in secondary markets. Details of the CEF’s portfolio are publicly disclosed quarterly and the NAV is computed daily and reported in the financial press.

  2. The discount is the difference between the exchange-traded share price and the underlying NAV and is computed as ln(Price/NAV). The CEF trades at a discount when the NAV exceeds the share price and at a premium when the share price exceeds the NAV. We refer to the discount as 12% when the computed value of the discount is −12%. Premium is treated as a negative discount.

  3. The effect of investor sentiment on asset prices is a widely debated issue. Lee et al. (1991) propose investor sentiment as they argue that tax or illiquidity explanations are inadequate to explain the size and time variation in CEF discounts. LST and others find evidence supporting the investor sentiment hypothesis (see Chopra et al. 1993; Bodurtha et al. 1995; Baker and Wurgler 2006, 2007; Hwang 2011). Other studies, however, provide no evidence supporting the investor sentiments hypothesis (see Chen et al. 1993; Lemmon and Portniaguina 2006; Qui and Welch 2006; Cherkes et al. 2009). Pontiff (1996) posits that high arbitrage costs prevent arbitrageurs from bringing the CEF share prices in line with their NAVs. Gemmill and Thomas (2002) provide evidence that the behavior of CEF discount in UK is consistent with costly arbitrage but not with investor sentiment hypothesis. In addition to investor sentiments and transactions costs a number of other hypotheses for CEF discounts are offered in the literature including: liquidity, agency, signaling, taxes, dividends, and managerial ability.

  4. The CEF discount can be viewed as the sum of the present value of all future dead-weight loss due to agency problems. CEFs with entrenched manager tend to have high degree of agency problem and high discount (Barclay et al. 1993). As the CEF discount widens, potential arbitrage profit motivates arbitrageurs to acquire and liquidate the CEFs.

  5. The agency costs hypothesis argues that the CEF discount makes up the difference between the managerial expense charges and the benefit from unobservable management ability (Berk and Stanton 2007). If the managerial expense exceeds the benefits due to managerial ability the CEF may trade at a discount. CEFs with higher agency problem may exhibit larger discount but the CEF managers may act to limit the discount by adopting a managed dividend policy so as to minimize the potential for arbitrage (Wang et al. 2011). Bradley et al. (2010) suggest that the CEF discount is endogenously related to shareholder activism. Funds with large discounts are more susceptible to activists who can profit from buying and liquidating the funds. Since the level of activism can be expected ex ante the market prices reflecting such expectation could shrink the discount. Wermers et al. (2008) show that poor CEF performance helps predict replacement of the fund manager and that the market’s expectation of management replacement would lead to a reduction in the fund discount.

  6. Our use of the CRSP index is reasonable as CEF share price responds to broad market movements. Our results are robust with regard to the choice of value or equal weighting. There is the possibility of an omitted index in the context of international funds and bond funds by using the CRSP index. Bodurtha et al. (1995) show that closed-end fund prices are more correlated to the market where the fund shares are traded compared to the market where the portfolio assets are traded.

  7. Brickley and Schallheim (1985) report CAR of 14% for 16 CEFs announcing open-ending during 1962–1982 period. Brauer (1984) reports CAR of 5.18% in the month of open-ending and 4.1% for the following month based on a sample of 14 CEFs open-ending during 1963–1980.

  8. We limit our post-announcement period to 26 weeks because the sample size starts to deteriorate quickly. In our sample, the termination period ranges from three days to more than 1 year. Seventy-five percent of the sample funds were liquidated within 30 weeks. The discount during the first 20 weeks exhibits a small downward trend with high degree of fluctuations.

  9. Over the 1989–2012 period, we have an average of 31 foreign bond funds, 257 domestic bond funds, 46 domestic equity funds, and 35 foreign equity funds which are used to compute the IDISC for each of the groups.

  10. Proxies for investor sentiment that have been recently used in studies include; risk measurement based on consumer sentiment from surveys (Lemmon and Portniaguina 2006; Hwang 2011), spread between returns on small-capitalization stocks and returns on large-capitalization stocks (Baker and Wurgler 2007), and the aggregate flow between bond funds and equity funds (Ben-Rephael et al. 2012). Qui and Welch (2006) and Lemmon and Portniaguina (2006) report that sentiment measures obtained from surveys are uncorrelated with the average CEF discount.

  11. The NAV of CEFs holding illiquid asset may be overstated by the transaction costs if the fund portfolio is to be liquidated. Cherkes et al. (2009) propose that investors can avoid large transaction costs of directly trading the illiquid asset, by trading in CEFs that invest in illiquid assets. Because illiquid assets are likely to be associated with low CEF portfolio turnover, we examine but not report, the portfolio turnover as a proxy for asset illiquidity.

References

  • Amihud Y (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time series effects. J Financ Mark 5:31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M, Wurgler J (2006) Investor sentiment and the cross-section of stock returns. J Financ 61:1645–1680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M, Wurgler J (2007) Investor sentiment in the stock market. J Econ Perspect 21:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay MJ, Holderness CG, Pontiff J (1993) Private benefits from block ownership and discounts on closed-end funds. J Financ Econ 33:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Rephael A, Kandel S, Wahl A (2012) Measuring investor sentiment with mutual fund flows. J Financ Econ 104(2):363–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk JB, Stanton R (2007) Managerial ability, compensation, and the closed-end fund discount. J Financ 62:529–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley M, Brav A, Goldstein I, Jiang W (2010) Activist arbitrage: a study of open-ending attempts of closed-end funds. J Financ Econ 95:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer GA (1984) Open-ending closed-end funds. J Financ Econ 13:491–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickley JA, Schallheim JS (1985) Lifting the lid on closed-end investment companies: a case of abnormal returns. J Financ Quant Anal 20:107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan JSP, Jain R, Xia Y (2008) Market segmentation, liquidity spillover, and closed-end country fund discounts. J Financ Mark 11:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen N-F, Kan R, Miller MH (1993) Are the discounts on closed-end funds a sentiment index? J Financ 48(2):795–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherkes M, Sagi J, Stanton R (2009) A liquidity-based theory of closed-end funds. Rev Financ Stud 22:257–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra N, Lee CMC, Shleifer A, Thaler RH (1993) Yes, discounts on closed-end funds are a sentiment index. J Financ 48(2):800–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Danbolt J, Siganos A, Vagena-Nanos E (2015) Investor sentiment and bidder announcement abnormal returns. J Corp Financ 33:164–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day TE, Li GZ, Yexiao X (2011) Dividend distributions and closed-end fund discounts. J Financ Econ. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.01.004

    Google Scholar 

  • De Long JB, Shleifer A, Summers LH, Waldmann RJ (1990) Noise trader risk in financial markets. J Polit Econ 98:703–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elyasiani E, Jia J (2011) Performance persistent of closed-end funds. Rev Quant Financ Acc 37:381–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemmill G, Thomas DC (2002) Noise trading, costly arbitrage, and asset prices: evidence from closed-end funds. J Financ 62:2571–2594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang B-H (2011) Country-specific sentiment and security prices. J Financ Econ 100:382–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SA, Lin J-C, Song KR (2006) Dividend policy, signaling, and discounts on closed-end funds. J Financ Econ 81:539–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmon M, Portniaguina E (2006) Consumer confidence and asset prices: some empirical evidence. Rev Financ Stud 19:1499–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon JG, White H (1985) Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J Econom 29:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malkiel BG (1977) The valuation of closed-end investment company shares. J Financ 32:847–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick G, French DW (2016) Effects of frequent information disclosure: the case of daily net asset value reporting for closed-end investment companies. Rev Quant Financ Acc 46(1):107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qui L, Welch I (2006). Investor sentiment measures. Working paper, Brown University

  • Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) The limits of arbitrage. J Financ 52:35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZJ, Nanda V (2011) Payout policies and closed-end fund discounts: signaling, agency cost, and the role of institutional investors. J Financ Intermediat 20(4):589–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wermers R, Wu Y, Zechner J (2008) Portfolio performance, discount dynamics, and the turnover of closed-end fund managers. SSRN: doi: 10.2139/ssrn.687142

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Analytic Focus, LLC, San Antonio, TX, 78230, USA

    Jullavut Kittiakarasakun

  2. Department of Finance, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX, 78249, USA

    Lalatendu Misra

  3. Texas Wesleyan University, Fort Worth, TX, 76105, USA

    Sinan Yildirim

Authors
  1. Jullavut Kittiakarasakun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lalatendu Misra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sinan Yildirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lalatendu Misra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kittiakarasakun, J., Misra, L. & Yildirim, S. An analysis of closed-end funds discounts viewed from a lack of redemption perspective. Rev Quant Finan Acc 50, 415–440 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0634-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0634-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation