Skip to main content

Did You Do as Well as Your Mutual Fund?

It's common practice to look at a fund's total return number for a snapshot of what performance to expect, but that won't give you the full picture. Morningstar studies have shown that investors' actual gains frequently pale in comparison to reported total return numbers. This phenomenon frequently plays out among funds that attract assets after streaks of hot performance, only to see some investors get skittish at the first signs of underperformance. After a moment's though, even a novice investor will realize that this behavior is just the opposite of the mantra -- buy low and sell high.

This practice can be more broadly attributed to bad behavior and lack of a plan or philosophy when it comes to investing. Investors are human and humans are emotional. As much as the logician in me would like to believe my left brain is working to drive my decision making, logic comes in after emotions are experienced to provide context for how we are feeling and not the other way around. To borrow from the existentialists, we as humans have limits to our rational ability.

It is these emotions that cause bad behaviors that then lead to poor investor returns. However, by being consciously aware of how we are feeling (emotions) and how these emotions relate to our thinking (logic), investors can empower themselves to make better decisions. The primary manifestations of investor bad behavior come in the form of market timing, picking stocks, and using past performance or a track record to pick investments that will (hopefully) provide superior performance in the future. These are topics for discussion on another day, but at least be aware of them for now.

Using past performance as a tool for investment selection simply doesn't work. This is counter intuitive for most people and in direct conflict with other areas of our life. For example, if an all-pro NFL quarterback leaves one team for another, it is not unreasonable to expect the quarterback will excel with his new team. Stated another way, the quarterback's performance will persist. However, this is not so in investing. In fact recent stellar past performance by a fund manager may be an indication that you don't want to own that fund.

There is no academic study that I am aware of that has shown that a manager's superior performance is likely to persist into the future. (There are mountains of studies that show just the opposite.) And more importantly, there is no reliable way for an investor to predict what fund manager will have future superior performance in advance or before the fund manager does outperform. Yet hindsight is always 20/20 and investors are emotional. It's a virtual spinning wheel investors tend to run on but one that can be gotten off of by being consciously aware of these behavioral traps.

Click here to read more about investor returns and to see some real life examples of how investors actually fared in funds with strong recent past performance.

To Your Prosperity ~ Kevin Kroskey


Bookmark and Share

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a