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. ...

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.   But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amoun...

What Does $100 Buy You in Your Home State?

A new map released by the Tax Foundation shows exactly how far $100 would go in all 50 states. Using recently released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Foundation was able to show how the varying prices of goods, housing and income taxes in each state can impact consumers’ purchasing power. Southerners and Midwesterners have a serious edge over those along the East and West Coasts. A hundred bucks goes the furthest in Mississippi, where $100 will buy you what would cost $115.74 in another state that's closer to the national average. The next low-price states are Arkansas, Missouri, and Alabama. Ohio comes in at an encouraging $112.11 Meanwhile, $100 would only be worth $84.60 in the District of Columbia, the priciest state, $85.32 in Hawaii and $86.66 in New York. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-much--100-is-worth-in-your-state-152310027.html Click the Map Read More