Peer versus Pure Benchmarks in the Compensation of Mutual Fund Managers

Richard B. Evans,Juan-Pedro Gomez,Linlin Ma,Yuehua Tang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441308
2019-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:We examine the role of peer (e.g. Lipper Manager Benchmark) vs. pure (e.g. S&P 500) benchmarks in mutual fund manager compensation. We find that while the majority of portfolio managers are compensated based on some combination of peer and pure benchmarks, 29% (21%) of portfolio managers report compensation based only a peer (pure) benchmark. Funds with peer benchmark compensated managers charge higher fees, but still outperform on a risk-adjusted net performance basis. Pure-benchmark compensated managers, on the other hand, exhibit lower active share and return gap, as well as higher R2, consistent with less effort and/or ability. Managers compensated with peer benchmarks tend to work in fund families with stronger incentives for internal competition; their funds are more likely to be directly distributed and their investors are more sophisticated. Overall, these results are consistent with market segmentation playing a role in the difference between peer and pure benchmarked investment advisors.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?