Abstract
Using a sample of equity funds in China, we explore for the first time mutual funds that impose discretionary inflow restrictions (gates) on investors. Contrary to managers’ claim, we find no clear evidence that inflow gates protect investor interests. Despite their superior past performance, inflow-restricted funds’ subsequent returns decline dramatically. In addition, funds tilt toward a riskier investment strategy and deliver a negative risk-adjusted return when the gate is in place. Our analyses further reveal that, after announcing purchase limits on fund assets, funds attract extra flows and more retail investors. This is consistent with the scarcity principle in marketing. Overall, we suggest that leaving the fund gate ajar to investors appears to be more of a marketing ploy than a form of investor protection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
