As a new parent, I'm already gauging my child's development for rolling over, sitting up, speaking her first word -- 'dadas' just last week! -- and more against guidelines in the plethora of parenting books I have. This relative comparison gives my wife and I feedback as to how our little bundle of joy is doing. Later, we'll get this relative comparison and feedback from her school grades and achievement tests among other sources.
Investors however tend to be more simplistic in their feedback mechanisms. They often define success as "My account went up last month. That's great!" Or conversely, "My account went down. It was a bad month." What's missing from this is a relative comparison asking the question, "Did my account go up or down as much as it should have given how much risk I am taking?" This involves a relative comparison against a representative benchmark.
The S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA®) report measures the performance of actively managed funds against their relevant S&P index benchmarks. While not adjusted for risk, this comparison is still a good one, as the comparisons are done within the same category, e.g. large cap stock fund versus large cap stock index and risk levels are roughly equivalent.
The 2013 SPIVA year-end report recently came out. It further illustrates how using an active management portfolio strategy is a low probability method in attempts to achieve higher investment returns.
Some highlights are below:
- According to the figures for 2013, 55.8% of large-cap managers and 68.09% of small-cap managers underperformed the benchmarks over the past 12 months ending Dec. 31, 2013.
- The picture is equally unfavorable when reviewing the performance over the longer-term three- and five-year investment horizons. The results show that the majority of the active managers across all the domestic equities categories failed to deliver returns higher than their respective benchmarks.
- Small-cap equities, as measured by the S&P SmallCap 600, had their best year since the index launch in 1994. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of small-cap active managers achieved returns that were lower than those of the benchmark. It is commonly believed that active management works best in inefficient markets such as small-cap or emerging markets—an argument that we find to be unconvincing. In fact, rolling five-year analysis of the performance figures over the past five years shows that the majority of small-cap active managers have been consistently underperforming the benchmark.
- The results for international equities were mixed. Most managers in the international developed and international small-cap categories delivered higher returns than the respective benchmarks whereas 54.09% of global equity and 57.48% of emerging markets equity managers failed to outperform the benchmarks. Regardless of the measurement time horizon, international small-cap equity remains the only category that has shown persistent outperformance by active managers.
- 2013 was not kind to fixed income. The turmoil in the fixed income markets is reflected in the declines of benchmark indices in the rate-sensitive and credit-sensitive sectors. Amidst uncertain monetary policy, active fixed income managers in a few categories posted better performance than the benchmarks over the past 12 months ending December 31. Most active fixed income managers in the longer-term government, longer-term investment-grade and global income categories outperformed the corresponding benchmarks. At the same time, the one-year data also demonstrates the difficulty in predicting future interest rates.
- Funds disappear at a meaningful rate. Over the past five years, nearly 26% of domestic equity funds, 24% of global/international equity funds and 21% of fixed income funds have been merged or liquidated. The finding highlights the importance of addressing survivorship bias in mutual fund analysis.
If you cannot sleep at night:
Best Regards,
Kevin Kroskey, CFP, MBA