MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416129869 · doi:10.1017/s0022109025102408

Capital Allocation and the Market for Mutual Funds: Inspecting the Mechanism

2025· article· en· W4416129869 on OpenAlexaff
Jules H. van Binsbergen, Jeong Ho Kim, Soohun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Capital allocation lineCapital (architecture)Market mechanism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We exploit heterogeneity in decreasing returns to scale (DRS) parameters across mutual funds to analyze the importance of scalability for investors’ capital allocation decisions. We find strong evidence that steeper DRS attenuate flow sensitivity to performance. We calibrate a rational model of active fund management and show that a large fraction of cross-sectional variation in assets-under-management is due to investors anticipating the effects of scale on return performance. We conclude that DRS play a key role in achieving equilibrium in the intermediated investment management market.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial and Quantitative AnalysisSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207