Given the wide variety of equity funds in the public offering market, fund investors find it difficult to select funds that match their investment preferences. Therefore, equity fund investors pay greater attention to funds that are recommended by sales professionals from banks or securities companies. They rely on brokers’ recommendations when selecting equity funds instead of conducting rigorous analysis. Therefore, brokers’ fund recommendations carry great importance from the perspective of investor protection. However, due to the limitations of data collection, research on this topic has not yet been conducted in Korea. Analysis of fund recommendations would have valuable implications for investor protection. Studies of equity funds have paid much attention to overall fund performance, fee structures, or the role of fund distributors (e.g., Won, 2009; Kim, 2011; Kho and Baek, 2013). However, although performance analysis of fund recommendations is important, research has paid little attention to the topic. To the best of our knowledge, no study has considered the real performance of recommended funds in Korea, as fund brokers do not voluntarily disclose data related to fund sales or the return performance of recommended funds. As each broker sells tens of funds, it is difficult to estimate the return performance of the funds of each broker. However, fund evaluation companies have recently begun to build data on funds recommended by each vendor, so analysis of the performance of recommended funds is possible. We empirically analyze the determinants of brokers’ fund recommendations and the performance of recommended funds in two ways. First, we analyze the factors that determine brokers’ fund recommendation decisions. Second, we analyze the future performance of the recommended funds. To confirm our findings, we use propensity score matching to compare the performances by matching recommended and non-recommended funds with similar characteristics. To investigate possible conflicts of interest in the fund recommendations, we focus on the levels of fees and commissions and the relationships between brokers and fund managers. We pay attention to the possibility that the seller, in recommending a fund to a customer, acts on behalf of the seller or affiliated fund manager rather than prioritizing the customer’s benefit. The results of this study are as follows. Funds with front-end loads and/or funds of asset management firms with no affiliated brokerage companies are more likely to receive recommendations from brokers. Furthermore, funds of large asset management companies receive more recommendations than those of medium or small management companies. In addition, new funds with short operating periods are selected as recommended funds, and new funds from affiliate management firms are more likely to be recommended. The performance of those recommended funds turns out to be inferior. Based on the results of analysis of the profitability of broker-recommended funds, we find that recommended funds do not perform better than funds that are not recommended by brokers. This result does not support the general perception that brokers have fund-selection ability. However, no evidence supports the view that the inferior performance of broker-recommended funds is caused by the self-interest of the broker who pursues the profit of a subsidiary asset management company. Recommended funds of affiliated asset management companies record better performance than those of non-affiliated companies. In particular, when the seller recommends a newly launched fund of the affiliated management company, its return performance is better. Thus, we conjecture that the inferior performance of a recommended fund is not due to the broker’s intention to subsidize an affiliated asset management company. This result suggests that a broker, through an information transfer from affiliated fund managers, plays a role in mitigating the information asymmetry of newly launched funds. It also supports the view that the affiliate broker analyzes the newly launched fund more accurately. Our study shows that broker-recommended funds generally exhibit inferior return performance. This result suggests that fund sellers are required to improve their fund selection ability to enhance the protection of fund investors. Sellers must improve their fund analysis capabilities through internal research and workforce reinforcement. Our study has some limitations in the sense that it covers a relatively short period due to the insufficient accumulation of fund recommendation data. Further research should be conducted to review the robustness of the analytical results over a wider analysis period after equity fund data are accumulated more broadly.
판매사의 펀드 추천 행위는 투자자 보호와 관련하여 중요성이 강함에도 불구하고, 데이터 수집의 한계로 인하여 이 주제에 대한 선행연구는 거의 수행되지 못했다. 본 연구는 판매사들이 추천한 국내 주식형 펀드를 대상으로, 판매사 펀드 추천행위의 결정요인과 추천 펀드들의 성과를 실증 분석하였다. 펀드 추천행위의 결정요인 분석결과에 의하면, 선취수수료가 존재하는 펀드와 계열 판매사가 없는 운용사의 펀드가 판매사의 추천을 받을 확률이 높았다. 그리고 중소형 운용사의 펀드보다 대형 운용사의 펀드들이 더 자주 판매사의 추천 펀드로 선정됐다. 또한, 운용연수가 짧은 신생 펀드들이 추천 펀드로 많이 선정되고 있으며, 특히 계열 판매사가 존재하는 신생 펀드가 추천 받을 확률이 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 판매사 추천 펀드의 운용성과에 대한 분석결과에 의하면, 추천 펀드는 비추천 펀드보다 성과가 열등했다. 그러나 판매사 추천 펀드가 비추천 펀드에 비하여 열등한 성과를 보인 결과가 계열 운용사 이익을 중시하는 판매사의 이해상충 문제에 기인하지는 않았다. 판매사가 계열 운용사의 펀드를 추천한 경우, 상대적으로 타 계열 운용사의 추천 펀드보다 더 우월한 성과를 실현하고 있다. 특히 판매사가 계열 운용사의 신생 펀드를 추천한 경우 운용성과가 좋았는데, 이는 판매사가 계열 운용사 신생 펀드에 대해 보다 정밀한 분석을 수행한 결과로 추정된다.
요약 Abstract Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 선행 연구 Ⅲ. 연구 방법 및 변수 설명 1. 연구 방법 2. 데이터 및 변수 설명 Ⅳ. 실증분석 1. 판매사 추천 행위의 결정요인 분석 2. 추천 펀드 성과의 분석결과와 해석 3. 강건성 검정 V. 결론 참고문헌
상호: 주식회사 학술교육원 I 대표: 노방용 I 사업자등록번호: 122-81-88227 I 통신판매업신고번호: 제2008-인천부평-00176호 I 정보보호책임자: 이두영
주소: (21319)인천광역시 부평구 영성중로 50 미래타워 701호 I 전화: 0505-555-0740 I 팩스: 0505-555-0741 I 이메일: email@example.com