用三个晨星评级分析成本在目标日期基金选择中的重要性

Q4 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
C. E. Chang, T. Krueger, H. Witte
{"title":"用三个晨星评级分析成本在目标日期基金选择中的重要性","authors":"C. E. Chang, T. Krueger, H. Witte","doi":"10.3905/jor.2021.1.085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although target date mutual funds (TDFs) have only been around since the mid-1990s, they are now common vehicles for retirement investing. Sixty percent of US companies now automatically funnel employees’ non-directed retirement funds into TDFs, which account for nearly one-quarter of all savings US workers have in 401(k)s. Helping investors pick among TDFs, Morningstar rates past risk-adjusted performance using a star system and provides forward-looking evaluations of more than 2,500 TDFs using either Analyst Ratings or a newly implemented machine-learning-based Quantitative Ratings. Morningstar assigns Analyst Ratings to a smaller subset of TDFs that tend to have been in existence the longest and have the largest size. We find that TDFs with lower fees have significantly higher star ratings than their higher expense counterparts. No-load TDFs have significantly higher star ratings than their load-charging counterparts. In assessing future fund prospects, TDFs with low expense ratios are favored by both analysts and artificial intelligence. TDFs without load charges have significantly better Quantitative Ratings than their load charging counterparts. TDFs with Quantitative Ratings tend to be smaller, younger, and have poorer prior performance than TDFs with Analyst Ratings. TOPICS: Long-term/retirement investing, mutual funds/passive investing/indexing, information providers/credit ratings Key Findings ▪ Target date funds (TDFs) with low expenses and without load charges have significantly higher Morningstar star ratings of past risk-adjusted performance. These same low-cost funds have higher Morningstar Analyst ratings and Quantitative ratings, which estimate future fund prospects of performance. ▪ Regression results suggest Morningstar’s two forward-looking fund ratings are not perfect substitutes. Analyst ratings weight fund expense and fund age more heavily (both negatively) while the computer-generated Quantitative ratings are more positively influenced by past fund performance. ▪ Morningstar’s star ratings, Analyst ratings, and Quantitative ratings all suggest that retirement investing will result in a larger nest egg when attention is restricted to no-load, low-expense TDFs. Additionally, the ratings suggest investors should favor larger but relatively younger funds.","PeriodicalId":36429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Retirement","volume":"8 1","pages":"66 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Importance of Costs in Target Date Fund Selection Using Three Morningstar Ratings\",\"authors\":\"C. E. Chang, T. Krueger, H. Witte\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jor.2021.1.085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although target date mutual funds (TDFs) have only been around since the mid-1990s, they are now common vehicles for retirement investing. Sixty percent of US companies now automatically funnel employees’ non-directed retirement funds into TDFs, which account for nearly one-quarter of all savings US workers have in 401(k)s. Helping investors pick among TDFs, Morningstar rates past risk-adjusted performance using a star system and provides forward-looking evaluations of more than 2,500 TDFs using either Analyst Ratings or a newly implemented machine-learning-based Quantitative Ratings. Morningstar assigns Analyst Ratings to a smaller subset of TDFs that tend to have been in existence the longest and have the largest size. We find that TDFs with lower fees have significantly higher star ratings than their higher expense counterparts. No-load TDFs have significantly higher star ratings than their load-charging counterparts. In assessing future fund prospects, TDFs with low expense ratios are favored by both analysts and artificial intelligence. TDFs without load charges have significantly better Quantitative Ratings than their load charging counterparts. TDFs with Quantitative Ratings tend to be smaller, younger, and have poorer prior performance than TDFs with Analyst Ratings. TOPICS: Long-term/retirement investing, mutual funds/passive investing/indexing, information providers/credit ratings Key Findings ▪ Target date funds (TDFs) with low expenses and without load charges have significantly higher Morningstar star ratings of past risk-adjusted performance. These same low-cost funds have higher Morningstar Analyst ratings and Quantitative ratings, which estimate future fund prospects of performance. ▪ Regression results suggest Morningstar’s two forward-looking fund ratings are not perfect substitutes. Analyst ratings weight fund expense and fund age more heavily (both negatively) while the computer-generated Quantitative ratings are more positively influenced by past fund performance. ▪ Morningstar’s star ratings, Analyst ratings, and Quantitative ratings all suggest that retirement investing will result in a larger nest egg when attention is restricted to no-load, low-expense TDFs. Additionally, the ratings suggest investors should favor larger but relatively younger funds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Retirement\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"66 - 83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Retirement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jor.2021.1.085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Retirement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jor.2021.1.085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管目标日期共同基金(TDF)自20世纪90年代中期才出现,但它们现在是退休投资的常见工具。60%的美国公司现在自动将员工的非定向退休基金转入TDF,这几乎占美国工人401(k)s所有储蓄的四分之一。晨星公司使用星级系统对过去风险调整后的业绩进行评级,并使用分析师评级或新实施的基于机器学习的定量评级对2500多只ETF进行前瞻性评估,帮助投资者在ETF中进行选择。晨星将分析师评级分配给一小部分存在时间最长、规模最大的ETF。我们发现,收费较低的TDF的星级明显高于收费较高的TDF。空载TDF的星级明显高于负载充电TDF。在评估未来基金前景时,低支出比率的TDF受到分析师和人工智能的青睐。没有负载充电的TDF比负载充电的同类TDF具有更好的定量评级。具有定量评级的ETF往往比具有分析师评级的ETF更小、更年轻,且先前表现较差。主题:长期/退休投资、共同基金/被动投资/指数化、信息提供商/信用评级关键发现▪ 低支出、无负载费用的目标日期基金(TDF)在过去的风险调整后业绩中的晨星评级明显更高。这些低成本基金具有更高的晨星分析师评级和量化评级,用于评估未来基金的业绩前景。▪ 回归结果表明,晨星的两个前瞻性基金评级并不是完美的替代品。分析师评级对基金支出和基金年龄的权重更大(均为负),而计算机生成的定量评级对过去基金业绩的影响更大。▪ 晨星的星级评级、分析师评级和定量评级都表明,当注意力局限于无负载、低成本的TDF时,退休投资将产生更大的积蓄。此外,评级显示,投资者应该青睐规模较大但相对年轻的基金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Importance of Costs in Target Date Fund Selection Using Three Morningstar Ratings
Although target date mutual funds (TDFs) have only been around since the mid-1990s, they are now common vehicles for retirement investing. Sixty percent of US companies now automatically funnel employees’ non-directed retirement funds into TDFs, which account for nearly one-quarter of all savings US workers have in 401(k)s. Helping investors pick among TDFs, Morningstar rates past risk-adjusted performance using a star system and provides forward-looking evaluations of more than 2,500 TDFs using either Analyst Ratings or a newly implemented machine-learning-based Quantitative Ratings. Morningstar assigns Analyst Ratings to a smaller subset of TDFs that tend to have been in existence the longest and have the largest size. We find that TDFs with lower fees have significantly higher star ratings than their higher expense counterparts. No-load TDFs have significantly higher star ratings than their load-charging counterparts. In assessing future fund prospects, TDFs with low expense ratios are favored by both analysts and artificial intelligence. TDFs without load charges have significantly better Quantitative Ratings than their load charging counterparts. TDFs with Quantitative Ratings tend to be smaller, younger, and have poorer prior performance than TDFs with Analyst Ratings. TOPICS: Long-term/retirement investing, mutual funds/passive investing/indexing, information providers/credit ratings Key Findings ▪ Target date funds (TDFs) with low expenses and without load charges have significantly higher Morningstar star ratings of past risk-adjusted performance. These same low-cost funds have higher Morningstar Analyst ratings and Quantitative ratings, which estimate future fund prospects of performance. ▪ Regression results suggest Morningstar’s two forward-looking fund ratings are not perfect substitutes. Analyst ratings weight fund expense and fund age more heavily (both negatively) while the computer-generated Quantitative ratings are more positively influenced by past fund performance. ▪ Morningstar’s star ratings, Analyst ratings, and Quantitative ratings all suggest that retirement investing will result in a larger nest egg when attention is restricted to no-load, low-expense TDFs. Additionally, the ratings suggest investors should favor larger but relatively younger funds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Retirement
Journal of Retirement Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信