Financial Symmetry News & Views

Posts Tagged ‘mutual funds’

Many illustrations of investment performance calculate the growth of a hypothetical investment from a given starting point.  Typically there is a benchmark, such as the S&P 500 index, charted alongside for comparison purposes.  The models show that had you invested a specific dollar amount, for example $10,000, you would have the initial $10,000 plus whatever growth through dividend re-investments and asset price appreciation at the end of the evaluation period.  This measures an investment’s total return for the period and is based on a buy-and-hold strategy that is quite different from how most people invest.

Are your Investments Growing?

Controlling Your Emotions?

Morningstar, an independent investment research company, compiled returns for how the average mutual fund investor did during the 2000’s. The research added a layer of analysis to the total return calculation by also tracking the cash flows in and out of the mutual fund.  They wanted to see what the performance looked like if you took into account additional buys and sells in the fund during the same time frame.  Then they compared the findings to the buy-and-hold strategy that mutual funds use to report investment performance.  What the findings show is that most investors suffer from bad timing as they get in when prices are high and get out when prices are low.  This is a reflection of how market forces can drive investor emotions and result in behaviors that cause poor relative investment performance.

Slow And Steady

Another interesting discovery is how fund companies provide different investing experiences for the average investor.  The institutions that stick to fundamentally sound investment principles were proven to have better investor returns relative to total returns than those companies that use a short-term, current-trends marketing strategy to attract investors.

Financial Symmetry’s composite results for the decade were an average annual rate of return of 4.93% compared to the average annual investor return of 1.68% across all funds.

Photo Credit: TheGiantVermin

photo credit - cliff1066™

If you invest in your employer sponsored retirement plan you have probably heard of Target-Date funds.  These funds are characterized as investments that change the allocation of stocks, bonds, and cash according to your specified retirement date.  In theory, these funds should progressively reduce risk exposure as the target date approaches.  However, there are no universal allocation standards, so the returns have varied widely from plan to plan.  This was highlighted by the market downturn in 2008 when funds with a target date of 2010 lost an average of 25%, with some posting losses of over 40%.

While the concept of these funds is great; taking the guesswork out of retirement planning for the average investor; further research, transparency, and likely regulation is required.  To that aim the Senate Special Committee on Aging will be introducing legislation that would require fiduciary responsibility for target-date fund managers. This is a step in the right direction, but there are still many other concerns that warrant attention.  In October 2009 Morningstar’s vice president of research Jon Rekenthaler testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging.  You can read his testimony here:

“Five Concerns About Target Date Funds”

http://advisor.morningstar.com/articles/article.asp?docId=17632

When selecting mutual funds to use in our client’s accounts we use various quantitative and qualitative factors to evaluate if we believe a fund can add value.  Morningstar is the most widely used source of mutual fund data and analysis, so we rely on their data for a significant portion of our research.  One thing we have learned over the years, however, is to take their star ratings with a grain of salt. This is because the star ratings are really a measure of past performance and are not an indicator of what the future will hold.

“Advisor Perspectives” recently reviewed the predictive ability of the star rating system over a full market cycle and the results of their study were similar to our experiences.  In a recent letter published by Robert Huebscher, he states, “We concur that the ratings are not an effective forward-looking measure, but that is not how they are used in the industry.  By calling this calculation a rating, Morningstar imparts at least the implicit endorsement of higher- rated funds and an expectation that their relative performance advantage will endure.”

To read the full article and learn more about fund performance over a full market cycle go to:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters09/Morningstar_Ratings_Fail_over_a_Full_Market_Cycle.php

When researching mutual funds to invest client funds, we evaluate numerous aspects including corporate culture, manager experience and compensation, research philosophy, and expenses. One of our primary concerns is that fund managers have their interests aligned with those of shareholders. In our view we find one of the best measures of this to be if managers invest significantly in their own funds. Consistent with recent studies by Morningstar, this also seems to be indicative of better performance.

The recent issue of Investment News details these findings:

“…funds whose managers invest $1 million or more of their own money in their fund ranked in the 42nd performance percentile, on average, over the five-year period through July. That means they outperformed 58% of their peers.”

To read the full article click here: InvestmentNews

The following is written by Allison Berger, CFP®.