5
Archived articleThis is an archived article from 2014 - please note that any content within the article may be out of date.

Why it's only the big bet fund managers that are worth watching

Private investors are often warned about the risks of running highly focused portfolios for the sake of investing heavily in just a handful of shares. For the average stock picker, getting the balance wrong between adequate diversification and high conviction can leave them hopelessly exposed if one of those shares goes on to collapse. In the case of smart money fund managers however, those that deliberately make big bets in a relatively concentrated portfolio have been found to be some of the industry’s best performers. So what is is about these high conviction managers that makes them so effective - and how can we take advantage?

Not all fund managers are equal

We wrote recently about some of the factors that make the actively managed fund industry such a duff deal for many investors. In a market that’s geared up to making a profit for itself first, and its customers second, so-called career risk means that it’s all too appealing for managers to weight their funds more heavily towards their benchmarks than their best ideas. In the worst cases, this means that some of them behave like quasi-tracker funds, performing in line with the market but still attracting high management fees.

Among the acres of research into the predictiveness and stock picking abilities of institutional money managers, there’s a general agreement that investment funds underperform. But dig a little deeper and you’ll find a hidden seam of active funds that can generate alpha by doing things differently. Among them are those that are prepared to make big bets in a much smaller number of companies than their peers. Rather than spreading their risk around a large portfolio and picking a few winners and a larger number of laggards, these confident few appear to be able to outperform from a smaller number of high conviction positions.

Picking the best stock pickers

In 2006 a team of US researchers (Baks et al.) studied fund industry data and found that concentrated managers outperformed their more broadly diversified peers by approximately 30 basis points each month, or around 4% annualised. After scrutinising their individual holdings they discovered that these focused managers excelled because their big bets outperformed the top holdings of more diversified funds. The findings suggest that fund managers who weight, or tilt, their portfolios in favour of their preferred shares are often better at stock picking and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of companies generally. By comparison, managers with a tendency to weight their positions in line with the market are less able to correctly spot which stocks are most likely to outperform.

Interestingly, this research tallies with earlier findings (Kacperczyk et al.) that fund managers who concentrate on specific sectors also outperform. Here it was found that those managers who ditched a broad based approach and focused on specific sectors based on informational advantages or expertise, outperformed their counterparts by around 1% annualised. Notably, this research also found that sector concentration lead fund managers to tilt towards growth and small stocks in particular.

Profiting from big bet positions

While the active fund management industry has attracted criticism for charging high fees for funds that sometimes seem to simply track a benchmark, it’s clear that there are lessons to learn from those with the confidence to deviate from the crowd. In a similar way that tracking a fund manager’s best ideas can be highly predictive, identifying those with the conviction to place big bets and run concentrated portfolios offers an insight into the views of the most skilled stock pickers in the market.

For Stockopedia readers wanting to take advantage of these big bet ideas, the forthcoming Ownership add-on will offer a comprehensive insight. In the coming weeks we’ll be merging our Short Interest Rank, Insider Rank and Institutional Best Ideas Rank into an overarching ‘Smart Money Ranking’ for every stock in the UK, and later the world. If you want to be one of the first to on the list to test out our new Ownership features and piggy back the smart money - please sign up here. 

Disclaimer

This is not financial advice. Our content is intended to be used and must be used for information and education purposes only. Please read our disclaimer and terms and conditions to understand our obligations.

2 comments


Avatar for emptyend

I'm not surprised by any of this.

The trick is to weight portfolios assymetrically too, IMO.

There was also some research comment recently (in a Numis sector note on the oil sector) about management teams that are prepared to back their own judgements with hard cash outperforming those with a lesser commitment. And again this is something borne out by my own limited observations within the oil and gas sector. This was what Numis had to say:

Our analysis suggests that the best-performing stocks over the last three years, during a
period of relative oil price stability, have been those with high management ownership
(CEOs with a high percentage of their net worth invested in the company they run).
Stocks where senior management have relatively small equity stakes (but relatively high
annual salaries) have performed poorly. Better alignment of management interests with
shareholders could lead to improved capital discipline and shareholder returns, in our
view.

Our analysis also shows that management teams with high equity ownership have
delivered significantly more shareholder value per £ of remuneration. In our view, this
demonstrates that management is better incentivised to deliver shareholder returns by
capital gains rather than annual income. Our analysis suggests that well paid
management teams with low equity ownership have delivered far less value for
shareholders over the last three years.

2
Avatar for cig

World + dog is looking at this data nowadays though, for example the performance of NFO (a US ETF based on insider sentiment) has been nondescript in the past 3 years. Besides more and more tools are available for hedging so it may become hard to know how "hard" the alleged cash is (and I wonder where Numis got their CEO net worth database from). You're also exposed to deluded management (Dick Fuld had lots of skin in the game). That said any data is good to have and in context can have some value.

On junior resources I suspect you may see most of the effect from this kind of thing with very simple metrics like board remuneration / market cap.

1
Get the free newsletter