Hur presterar aktiva fonder under en kritisk period? : En kvantitativ studie om svenska aktiva fonder under varierande marknadsstadier

Sammanfattning: The rapid growth in the fund industry over the past two decades has created potential to become the most important financial institution for households, corresponding to today's banks and insurance companies. This is especially true in Sweden, as the population's fund savings in 2018 were the most per capita in the world.  Funds usually consist of two distinctions; actively and passively managed. The difference is that active funds have the goal of outperforming their benchmark index, which results in higher fees than passively managed funds. To justify a higher fee, active funds require an excess return relative to index funds. Based on previous research, it is possible to distinguish clear differences between the performance of active funds. A longer time horizon, different markets, varying sizes of the fund's holdings and market cyclical fluctuations seem to produce differentiating results. Research has not taken place to the same extent in the Swedish market, especially not during widely different market stages. The purpose is to investigate whether the size of active fund holdings affects performance. The study will examine Swedish fund's risk-adjusted performance during the financial crisis and the subsequent recovery period in relation to its benchmark index. The study has applied a quantitative research strategy where the fund's performance has been evaluated on the basis of Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio and Jensen's Alfa. The sample consists of 23 funds with holdings in large companies and 11 funds with holdings in smaller companies. Based on the empirical results of the study, it is clarified that the size of active fund holdings affects performance. During the crisis period, on average, both sample groups underperformed their benchmark index based on all three risk-adjusted measures. Although the funds did not succeed in justifying their fees during the crisis period, the risk-adjusted performance of large-cap funds was better than small-cap funds. On the other hand, the empirical result during the recovery period showed a differentiated outcome. The small-cap funds generated on average higher risk-adjusted performance in relation to the large-cap funds, but also compared with their benchmark index.