Standard & Poor's recently published an annual year-end
scorecard, called the Standard & Poor’s Indices Versus Active (SPIVA)
report. SPIVA compares the performance
of active mutual funds versus their respective benchmark indices. Not surprisingly, the results continue to
favor the indices.
For the 5-year period ending December 31, 2012, 79% of
actively managed U.S. equity funds failed to beat their benchmark index. The percentage that failed for international
equity and fixed income funds were 66% and 69%, respectively. Put another way, the odds of picking an
active fund that outperformed its benchmark were less than successfully calling
a coin toss!
Unfortunately, these results do not fully paint the picture
of active management's underperformance.
SPIVA’s return measurements do not take into account significant fees
that most active mutual funds charge.
Additional costs include management expenses, commissions, and marketing
fees, all of which further reduce returns.
This is another of a multitude of studies that reach the
same conclusion: Investors expose
themselves to additional market risk from active managers' attempts to
outperform a given benchmark – risk that is not compensated by higher
returns. Further, the higher costs
associated with active mutual fund investing make the probability of
outperforming the market extremely unlikely.
I have always advocated a different approach to investing,
one that acknowledges what SPIVA confirms.
Specifically, allocating and owning a portfolio of passively managed,
tax efficient, and low cost funds allow investors to capture the most that
capital markets provide year after year.
Investors’ assets should not be left to chance. By using a passive investing strategy, you can markedly and consistently improve the odds of investing success beyond the toss
of a coin.
No comments:
Post a Comment