More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Solin

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Solin
 

Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year: A Slippery Slope

Posted: 02/14/2012 7:10 pm

I previously cautioned investors about the perils of relying on various lists of "best fund managers." One of the most popular of these lists is issued annually by Morningstar, which annually designates a "Fund Manager of the Year" in various categories.

Lipper, another well-known mutual fund researcher, also bestows awards on funds "that have excelled in delivering consistently strong risk-adjusted performance, relative to peers."

Presumably, investors rely on these awards as a basis for selecting mutual funds in their portfolios. This is unfortunate.

My colleagues at Index Funds Advisors studied the performance of sixteen domestic equity funds that received the "fund manager of the year" designation by Morningstar. It looked at data from the inception date of the fund manager (or, in two cases, from the inception date of Morningstar's benchmark) through 2011. Here's a summary of the findings:

Past Performance is no... (You know the rest)

Will Danoff, who managed the Fidelity Contrafund, was Domestic Equity Manager of the Year in 2007. In that year, he beat his benchmark by almost eight percent. In 2009, he underperformed his benchmark by almost the same percentage.

Mason Hawkins, who managed Longleaf Partners, won the award in 2006, when he beat his benchmark by 6.17 percent. He underperformed his benchmark by 6.22 percent in 2007 and by 13 percent in 2008.

Every one of the fund managers of the year had subsequent years of some underperformance. Perhaps the worst example is Jim Callinan, the manager of the RS Small Cap Growth fund, who was the 1999 Domestic Equity Manager of the Year. No wonder. His fund beat its benchmark by an unbelievable 140 percent! Then Jim fell off the wagon. In six of the seven ensuing years, he underperformed his benchmark. In the only year he beat it (2004), it was by a measly 0.85 percent.

The Lack of Evidence of Skill

Of the sixteen funds studied, only one fund manager evidenced skill based on a statistical test (the t-test) which determines if the fund's outperformance was really attributable to skill (with a 95 percent or higher probability) or if it could be explained by luck. Even if you can find a fund manager who passes the test for a finite period of time, it is not a slam dunk that his skill will persist in the future.

Helpful Data from Morningstar

While Morningstar's "Fund Manager of the Year" awards are likely to mislead investors, other data it provides is worthy of serious consideration. It reported 2011 inflows of passively managed long-term funds of $76.4 billion in 2011. In sharp contrast, actively managed funds had net outflows of $9.4 billion. Clearly, investors are getting the message. Still, the overall market share of actively managed funds, as reported by Morningstar, is 85.2 percent compared to 14.8 percent.

You want to be part of 14.8 percent. I call those investors the educated minority.


Dan Solin is a senior vice president of Index Funds Advisors. He is the New York Times bestselling author of The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest Retirement Book You'll Ever Read and The Smartest Portfolio You'll Ever Own. His new book, The Smartest Money Book You'll Ever Read, was published December 27, 2011.The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

 
 
 

Follow Dan Solin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DanSolin

 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:01 PM on 02/15/2012
My biggest winner in 2011 mutual funds was a Dividend Growth Fund. Outperformed an S&P index fund. Bonds/US T-bills and munis have not been bad.
11:16 AM on 02/16/2012
One year tells you nothing about the skill of a manager. Since managers have a high irregularity in their performance, you need more like 40 years. The point of this blog is that the irregularity of a manager's performance, relative to the benchmark, would lead an investor to the conclusion that they would be better off buying index funds for their asset class exposure instead of actively managed funds.
01:54 PM on 02/15/2012
I absolutely agree that a one year winning result is totally meaningless as to weather the manager is a winner. The only benchmarks that mean anything are the long term performance of the fund vs the general market. That also probably should be looked at in recent 10 year results to offset any huge past gains. Those graphs that funds post showing 10 year growth of an initial investment are probably the best comparables.
10:05 AM on 02/15/2012
Investing for the long-run is NOT rocket science, but, it does take a strategic investment plan and the will and resolve to stick with it and "stay-the-course" as the familiar Vanguard mantra states. With a strategic asset allocation between stocks/bonds/commodities/real estate/cash and a periodic re-balancing, those with the perseverance to stay with the plan can surmount and avoid the emotional whipsawing that the market inevitably delivers. Again, it is not rocket science, it is actually more common sense, and the realization of a few key investment realities, namely, low costs do matter to long-run returns, the vast majority of actively managed accounts cannot surpass the long-run returns of broadly diversified market index funds, and, very, very few people have the skills or luck necessary to "beat-the-market" consistently over the long haul.
09:53 AM on 02/15/2012
Fidelity now allows you to see your portfolio performance on the web site.

Picking my own stocks, but keeping at least 50% in cash, I have average 5.5% over the past 9 years. That compares to 2.92% for the S&P 500.

That shows if you just buy cheap, dividend-paying stocks and hold them over the long term, you will make money in the long run. Of my 9-year returns, 41% are dividends and 59% are gains.

I did suffer an annoying 15% unrealized capital loss in 2008, but I bought instead of selling when prices were down and have made it all back and more.
01:47 PM on 02/15/2012
My annually re-balanced, globally diversified portfolio built using passive funds consisting of the asset classes recommended by Mr. Solin, Paul Merriman and others split 55% stocks and 45% bonds had a return of 6.35% net of all fees for the 10 years ending 12/31/2011.

Determine your goals and the amount of risk you can handle. Set your asset allocation using low cost passive funds and re-balance periodically. Ignore the noise of CNBC and enjoy life.

I have to admit 2008 to March, 2009 tested my resolve. While friends were bailing out I stayed the course, rebalanced and from the March, 2009 low to 12/31/2011 more than regained those losses.
02:08 PM on 02/15/2012
You had more risk than I did, so your rewards were somewhat higher. You also had the favorable winds of a ridiculous bond market - who thought interest rates on 10-year treasuries could go to 2%?

I pick stocks based on earnings, dividends, and management. Investing in an index fund means that you have to accept the stocks of companies with high P/Es or poor management, just because they're in the index. I also like to scrutinize the annual reports for signs self-serving accounting.

Anyway, where the fun in investing in index funds? The way I do it, you get to read all the financial newspapers and match wits with the world. You notice I do keep 50% cash, just in case it turns out I'm not as smart as I think.
07:37 PM on 02/14/2012
In Dan Solin's post, are the comparison to bench marks truly percents or are they comparisons of percentage POINTS?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
01:46 AM on 02/15/2012
The 'benchmark' is set by specific criteria, Morningstar or Lipper lists these every year.

When a manager beats the Lipper 'benchmark' by 6.17 percent, the benchmark may have been 8.3% and the manager returned 14.47%, hence the 'beat'.

Mr. Solin makes the point that Active Managers do not have much going for them that a dart board and a 5 year old don't have.... other than the ability to read the WSJ stock index.
11:09 AM on 02/16/2012
They are percentages relative to the Morningstar specified benchmarks. So if the manager had a 15% return and the benchmark was 10%, the green bar represents a 5% excess return relative to the benchmark (alpha). The red bars represent negative alpha. The problem is the irregularity of this alpha. Because of the high deviation from the average alpha, the median manager in the study required 100 years of data to rule out luck as the source of the alpha. All the benchmarks are shown in the referenced study that Dan linked to: http://www.ifa.com/articles/Luck_or_Skill.aspx