10 Reasons why investing in actively managed funds is a losers game

Thursday, Feb 02 2012 by
A pile of cash in flames
A pile of cash in flames

The amount of evidence stacking up that hedge funds, mutual funds and even private equity do not provide value for their investors is just staggering. The latest figures reported in the FT showed that 70% of the profits of private equity had been gobbled up by the managers rather than the investors. While there are certainly signs that the public's tolerance of excessive fees and executive pay is falling, the likelihood of significant structural change in the finance industry is still remote. Given such a backdrop the probability remains that investors in funds will on average continue to underperform their benchmarks. So what is an investor to do?

We still believe that individuals who have the time and discipline to do their own research and think outside the box should look to invest the equity portion of their own funds directly in the stock market. We appreciate that not every investor has the interest or inclination to do this but a few more might be likely to if they seriously considered how compromised the alternative is. 

Here follows a rundown of ten key reasons why investing in managed funds is such a losers game and then we propose a few alternatives:

  1. Underperformance. It has been shown that 75% of investment funds under-perform the stock market averages over the long term, not least due to the compounding impact of high fees and trading commissions.
  2. Hidden Costs. The real cost of owning a fund is not published - it is hidden away as reduced performance. Once transaction costs, tax costs, cash drag, soft dollar arrangements and advisory fees are added to the published expense ratios the total annual cost of owning a fund can be over 4%!
  3. Agency Issues. Most fund managers typically get rich on fees rather than from making good investments skewing their incentives towards asset gathering and retention rather than investment performance. As Fred Schwed wrote back in the 1940s,"**Where are the Customers' Yachts**"?
  4. Size Bias. Due to the above, institutions often get too big to invest meaningfully in smaller companies which much research has shown offer the best opportunity for outperformance.
  5. Career Risk. Fund Managers' careers may be at risk if they don't report consistent quarterly results. This bias promotes short termism, over-trading, 'herd' behaviour and the chasing of momentum stocks which can often end catastrophically.
  6. The 'Star' Issue. Evidence is growing that traditional 'star' stock picking fund managers like Bill Miller and Anthony Bolton are struggling to adapt to the evolving 'risk on, risk off' market structure. Many have been registering significant underperformance in recent years.
  7. Time Weighting of Performance. The average dollar invested in a fund radically underperforms the reported return. This is primarily due to the fact that funds report their returns in a time weighted rather than dollar weighted fashion - a statistical trick chosen to inflate apparent returns to potential investors.
  8. Mean Reversion. Attracted to a fund with strong historic returns? Don't be returns have a tendency to mean revert and underperform in future. A recent study showed that "when managers were compelled to invest extra cash from investor inflows in stocks, they were unable to beat the market."
  9. Redemption Delay. It can often take days or even weeks to sell a fund. As many investors found out to their great cost in the credit crunch, in times of poor liquidity the possibility of getting your money out of less liquid funds at all can be significantly reduced!
  10. Lack of Transparency. While some funds do publish their 'top holdings' many funds are clothed in secrecy begging the question of what is it that you actually own? The Bernie Madoff saga clearly showed how such a lack of transparency can end disastrously.

As we've discussed elsewhere, the reason fund managers can't beat the market is NOT because the market is unbeatable. Essentially, as John Bogle has always explained, the fund management industry shows evidence of institutionally bad decision making, herd behaviour and excessive compensation. If investors are looking for long term security, then they should take matters into their own hands by learning to invest their portfolio themselves.

If you can't find the time and discipline to dedicate to stock market investment (which is probably likely!), we still recommend investing in the stock market, but you should focus on the very lowest cost passively managed funds. ETFs and Index funds are the best bet and have been shown to beat 75% of actively managed funds. Warren Buffett has been quoted as saying "If you have 2% a year of your funds being eaten up by fees you're going to have a hard time matching an index fund in my view."  In fact, Warren Buffett believes so strongly that index funds will beat hedge funds over the long run that he's even put a $1m bet on the S&P500 beating a fund of funds over a 10 year basis.

The good news is that the growing social clamour over high fees and excessive pay is leading to an increasing number of low cost ETFs and quantitatively managed funds hitting the market for investors. The future certainly is looking a lot brighter for investors in funds, but stay vigilant, always think of the costs and think before you act!

About the Author's Blog

Edward Croft Profile Image Promotional
Follow @edcroft on Twitter

I post my day to day thoughts and ramblings on twitter - do join me.... ...read more or visit website »


As per our Terms of Use, Stockopedia is a financial news & data site, discussion forum and content aggregator. Our site should be used for educational & informational purposes only. We do not provide investment advice, recommendations or views as to whether an investment or strategy is suited to the investment needs of a specific individual. You should make your own decisions and seek independent professional advice before doing so. Remember: Shares can go down as well as up. Past performance is not a guide to future performance & investors may not get back the amount invested.

Do you like this Post?
7 thumbs up
0 thumbs down
Share this post with friends

1 Comment on this Article show/hide all

Rob Davies 5th Feb '12 1 of 1

Costs are important, but so are other issues like volatility, availability and size.

Fund Management: VT Maven Smart Dividend UK Fund
| Link | Share

What's your view on this article? Log In to Comment Now

You can track all @StockoChat comments via Twitter

About Edward Croft

Edward Croft

CEO at Stockopedia where I weave code, prose and investing strategies to help investors beat the stock markets. I've a background in the City and asset management but now am more interested in building great stock selection tools for the use of investors online.   Traditionally investors online have had very poor access to the best statistics, analytics and strategies for the stock market and our aim is to set that straight.  High Quality fundamental information has been prohibitively expensive in the past and often annoyingly dull. People these days don't just want to know the PE Ratio and look at a balance sheet. They expect a layer of interpretation over data, signal from noise and the ability to know at a glance whether a stock is worth investigating or not. All this is possible using great design and the insights gleaned from quantitative research.  Stockopedia is where we try to make it happen ! more »


Stock Picking Tutorial Centre

Related Content

Let’s get you setup so you get the most out of our service
Done, Let's add some stocks
Brilliant - You've created a folio! Now let's add some stocks to it.

  • Apple (AAPL)

  • Shell (RDSA)

  • Twitter (TWTR)

  • Volkswagon AG (VOK)

  • McDonalds (MCD)

  • Vodafone (VOD)

  • Barratt Homes (BDEV)

  • Microsoft (MSFT)

  • Tesco (TSCO)
Save and show me my analysis