Search results

The purpose of this paper is to study if actively managed exchange-traded funds (AMETFs) and actively managed mutual funds (AMMFs) are complements or substitutes. It also tests if there are tax or liquidity clientele effects.

The study investigates the relation between individual AMMF flows and aggregate AMETF flows as well as individual AMETF flows and aggregate AMMF flows. A 2013 tax change is used to analyze if a tax clientele effect exists between the AMETF and AMMF markets. The authors use differences in investor groups for institutional vs retail fund share classes to test for liquidity clientele effects.

The authors find that equity and mixed AMETFs and AMMFs are substitutes, although not perfect substitutes. Taxation-related differences between the two products create a clientele effect for fixed income and mixed funds where tax-sensitive investors are more likely to substitute AMETFs for AMMFs surrounding tax increases. There is weak evidence that institutional investors may prefer AMETFs more than retail investors because of their enhanced liquidity.

This is the first study to investigate the flow relation between AMETFs and AMMFs. The fast-paced growth of the AMETF area coupled with the substitutability between the two products and tax advantages of AMETFs has the capability to gain significant market share from AMMFs in the future.

Many employers express concern over consumer response to employees with criminal histories. However, consumers' responses may be less negative than employers assume. The authors examine consumers' response to organizations that hire employees with criminal histories.

The authors surveyed participants randomly assigned to one of two conditions: purchasing services from an employer that hires individuals with criminal histories or from an employer whose inclination to hire individuals with criminal histories is unknown. The authors considered four service providers, among which the length of customers' time and involvement with employees varies: a grocery store, restaurant, auto-repair shop, and hotel.

Participants were no more or less likely to patronize the restaurant, the repair shop, or the grocery store that hired individuals with criminal histories, and no more or less likely to alter their willingness to pay for these services. Consumers were less likely to stay at a hotel that hired employees with criminal histories, but this difference was mitigated when customers were provided with an explanation of the benefits of hiring individuals with criminal histories.

This study highlights the need for further research on perceptions that limit hiring of individuals with criminal histories and other similarly marginalized populations.

This research addresses a common justification – consumer concern – for not hiring individuals with criminal histories.

Increased employment improves individual outcomes, such as access to stable housing and food, as well as larger outcomes, such as public safety.

This paper highlights a population often marginalized in the hiring process. The findings challenge a common justification for not hiring individuals with criminal histories.