Raising Capital at ShawSpring Partners

Adi   Sunderam

Case | HBS Case Collection | July 2016 (Revised June 2017)

Raising Capital at ShawSpring Partners

by Adi Sunderam

Language: English

Format: Print

16 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Sunderam, Adi. "Raising Capital at ShawSpring Partners." Harvard Business School Case 217-002, July 2016. (Revised June 2017.)

We develop three novel measures of how much of the price impact of their trading different mutual funds internalize. We show that mutual funds that internalize more of their price impact hold larger cash buffers and use these buffers more aggressively to accommodate inflows and outflows. As a result, stocks held by these funds have lower volatility, and flows out of these funds have smaller spillover effects on other funds holding the same securities. Our results provide evidence of meaningful fire sale externalities in the mutual fund industry.

We develop a model in which risk-averse, specialized bond investors must be paid to absorb shocks to the supply and demand for long-term bonds in two currencies. Since long-term bonds and foreign exchange are both exposed to unexpected movements in short-term interest rates, our model naturally links the predictability of long-term bond returns to the predictability of foreign exchange returns. Specifically, a shift in the net supply of long-term bonds in one currency influences bond term premiums in both currencies as well as the foreign exchange rate between the two currencies. Our model matches several important empirical patterns, including the co-movement between exchange rates and bond term premiums as well as the finding that central banks' quantitative easing policies impact not only local-currency long-term yields, but also foreign exchange rates. We also show that this quantity-driven approach provides a unified account explaining both why foreign exchange tends to outperform when the foreign interest rates exceed domestic rates and why long-term bonds tend to outperform when the yield curve is steep.

We present a framework for analyzing “model persuasion.” Persuaders influence receivers’ beliefs by proposing models (likelihood functions) that specify how to organize past data (e.g., on investment performance) to make predictions (e.g., about future returns). Receivers are assumed to find models more compelling when they better explain the data, fixing receivers’ prior beliefs over states of the world. Model persuaders face a key tradeoff: models that better fit the data given receivers’ prior beliefs induce less movement in receivers’ beliefs. This tradeoff means that a receiver exposed to the true model can be most misled by persuasion when that model fits poorly—for instance when there is a lot of data that exhibits randomness. In such cases, a wrong model often wins because it provides a better fit. Similarly, competition between persuaders tends to neutralize the data because it pushes towards models that provide overly good fits and therefore do not move receivers’ beliefs much. The fit-movement tradeoff depends on receiver characteristics, so with multiple receivers a persuader is more effective when he can send tailored, private messages. We illustrate with examples from finance, business, politics, and law.

Faculty & Research

Raising Capital at ShawSpring Partners

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author

Faculty & Research

Raising Capital at ShawSpring Partners

Citation:

Related Work

About the Author

More from the Author