Larry Swedroe

Wise Investing
Click Here

Active Management Will Likely Get You Nowhere

By Larry Swedroe | Jun 22, 2009 |

It seems like a never-ending battle. Active management continually tries to sell you on the hope of outperforming the market. And despite volumes of evidence that active management is a loser’s game, some of you may still cling to that hope. There’s a great Forbes article that will hopefully show you why you shouldn’t rely on active management of your investments.

In the article Actively Mismanaged Funds, Scott Woolley focuses on the dismal performance of once legendary manager Bill Miller of the Legg Mason Value Trust.

Miller became the “poster boy” for believers in active management as his fund beat the market for 15 consecutive years. However, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the fund underperformed the S&P 500 Index by 10.4, 12 and 18 percent, respectively. This performance has been so dismal that the fund’s annual returns since its inception in 1983 barely beat the S&P 500, 11.1 percent versus 10.9 percent. 

Woolley went on to note that if you “adjust for the fact that investors dumped most of their money into Miller’s fund as his hot hand was cooling and the picture is uglier. If they had made identical bets on an S&P 500 Index fund over the past 26 years, their return would have averaged 5.8% versus Value Trust’s 5.4%.”

This is certainly not an isolated case. Consider the following examples from my book The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You’ll Ever Need:

  • The Lindner Large-Cap Fund outperformed the S&P 500 each year from 1974 through 1984. Over the next 18 years, the fund returned 4.1 percent, underperforming its benchmark by over 8 percent a year.
  • David Baker was the manager of 44 Wall Street Fund. The fund was the top-performing diversified U.S. stock fund of the 1970s. Unfortunately, 44 Wall Street ranked as the single worst-performing fund of the 1980s, losing 73 percent. The fund did so poorly that in 1993 it was merged into the 44 Wall Street Equity Fund, which was then merged into the Matterhorn Growth Fund Inc. in 1996.

One of the amazing things about investing is that individuals continue to ignore not only all the academic research, but also the required SEC warning on all fund advertising that past performance is not a predictor of future results. It’s the financial equivalent of ignoring the surgeon general’s warning about smoking being dangerous to your health.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    MrRosemary

    06/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Active Management Will Likely Get You Nowhere

    This is why I'm puzzled at Morningstar rankings. Mutual funds clamor for the 4 and 5 star rankings, but it seems like they are very heavily (entirely?) skewed to past results.

    Taking a particular time frame, has anyone examined the predictive ability of a 5 star fund vs its index? I know S&P talks about its 5 star stocks and how they often beat their benchmarks, but I do not recall any such comparison for mutual funds.

  •  
    2

    MrRosemary

    06/28/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Active Management Will Likely Get You Nowhere

    Nevermind. I found one answer.
    http://www.theskilledinvestor.com/ss.item.54/do-morningstar-ratings-predict-risk-adjusted-equity-mutual-fund-performance.html

    In a nutshell, the answer is no. One and 2 star funds tend to do poorly going forward, but 3,4 and 5 star funds do not differ from each other significantly.

  •  
    3

    larry swedroe

    07/01/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Active Management Will Likely Get You Nowhere

    RE Morningstar

    I have written about their results in my books. And they have no more ability to predict which managers will outperform than anyone else. Why should anyone think they do. Not when the top pension plan advisors (SEI and Russell)have persistently managed to have their funds underperform the market and they have more resources than Morningstar.

    In addition to their 5 star ratings M* has a list of their very best picks. They created three model portfolios with increasing degrees of risk--higher equity allocations. And then they benchmarked them against indices. But the benchmarks are biased in their favor. Surprise, surprise. For example, they use total market funds as benchmarks but recommend investing in small and value funds. Now small and value funds should produce higher returns as compensation for taking more risk. So the hurdles are too low. Yet they still fail, persistently to outperform.

    The following is from my book Wise Investing Made Simple;
    The Hulbert Financial Digest tracked the performance of Morningstar?s five-star funds for the period 1993?2000. For that eight-year period the total return (pretax) on Morningstar?s top-rated U.S. funds averaged +106 percent. This compared to a total return of +222 percent for the total stock market, as measured by the Wilshire 5000 Equity Index. Hulbert also found that the top-rated funds, while achieving less than 50 percent of the market?s return, carried a relative risk (measured by standard deviation) that was 26 percent greater than that of the market.1 If the performance had been measured on an after-tax basis, the tax inefficiency of actively managed funds relative to a passive index fund would have made the comparison significantly worse.
    Hulbert also looked at a portfolio consisting of only Morningstar?s highest rated funds, as highlighted in Morningstar?s newsletter. How did such a portfolio fare? From January 1999 through March 2002, it trailed the market by almost 6 percent per annum, after paying sales charges, redemption fees and other transaction costs.And finally, for the period 1995?2001, funds rated one star outperformed funds rated five star by 45 percent.

    Now Morningstar does provide a great service in the data that they make available. It's just that basically the star system may have less value than a simple ranking by expenses

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

Click Here
track your portfolio