Skip to main content

Mutual Fund Performance Report Card - The Grades

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
 

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. ...

2013 Key Tax Proposals

On February 13, President Obama's Fiscal Year 2013 budget was released. Follow this link to get a full copy of the   2013 Budget . The   Treasury's Green Book   containing general explanations of the Administration's revenue proposals can be found here. Robert Keebler, a leading professional in the area of tax and estate planning, highlighted some of the key proposals potentially affecting taxpayers below: Extend Bush tax cuts for all but the top two brackets. The only change would be to have the 33% and 35% rates go back to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Taxpayers in the top two marginal brackets would still benefit from reduced rates on the portion of their income taxed in the lower brackets. Raise the long-term capital gains rate to 20% for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 per year, $250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately. Tax rate on qualified dividends would revert to ordinary income t...

Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of the Retirement Decision

An important paper has recently released by the Social Security Administration called   Behavioral and Psychological Aspects of the Retirement Decision . It delves into some of the non-financial reasons why people choose to retire when they do. Following are some highlights from the paper. Many future retirees do not understand the interplay between claiming age and Social Security benefits.   Even when they understand the claiming rules, many people claim benefits when it is not economically advisable to do so, as m ore than half of retirees claim benefits at 62.  Retirees tend to   anchor   on ages that have some retirement significance.   Why do so many people claim to be "burnt out" at work when they turn 62? Why not 60 or 64 or 68? It's because 62 is the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits. But what if they were to anchor on age 70 instead? Might they push through the burnout, as they would if it occurred at 55 or 60 when retirement cle...