Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 126

The difficulties picking fund manager winners

Since its origination in the United States in the early 1970s, indexing as an investment strategy has grown tremendously, to the point that according to Morningstar, assets in US-domiciled index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) accounted for 38% of equity and 19% of fixed income funds as of year-end 2014. In Australia, 6.6% of total assets under management are now index funds and ETFs as at the same date. Broader industry surveys point to indexing representing 18% of assets (Rainmaker data, 31 December 2014).

An indexed investment strategy seeks to track the returns of a particular market or market segment after costs by assembling a portfolio that invests in the same group of securities, or a sampling of the securities, that compose the market. Indexing (or passive) strategies use quantitative risk-control techniques that seek to replicate the benchmark’s return with minimal expected deviations (and, by extension, with no expected positive excess return versus the benchmark). In contrast, actively managed funds, either fundamentally or quantitatively managed, seek to provide a return that exceeds a benchmark. In fact, any strategy that operates with an objective of differentiation from a given market capitalisation-weighted benchmark can be considered active management and should therefore be evaluated based on the success of the differentiation.

Can investors consistently pick winning funds?

Two critical questions for investors in actively managed funds are: “Do I have the ability to pick a winning fund in advance?” and “Will the winning fund continue to win for the entire life of my portfolio?” In other words, can an investor expect to select a winner from the past that will then persistently outperform in the future? Academics have long studied whether past performance can accurately predict future performance. More than 40 years ago, Sharpe (1966) and Jensen (1968) found limited to no persistence. Three decades later, Carhart (1997) reported no evidence of persistence in fund outperformance after adjusting for both the well-known Fama-French three-factor model (that is, the influence of fund size, fund style and momentum). Carhart’s study reinforced the importance of fund costs and highlighted how not accounting for survivorship bias can skew results of active/passive studies in favour of active managers. More recently, Fama and French (2010) reported results of a separate 22-year study suggesting that it is extremely difficult for an actively managed investment fund to regularly outperform its benchmark.

To analyse consistency among actively managed funds, we ranked all eligible Australian funds in terms of excess return versus their stated benchmarks over the five years ended 2009. We then divided the funds into quintiles, separating out the top 20% of funds, the next-best-performing 20% of funds, and so on. We then tracked their excess returns over the following five years (through December 2014) to check their performance consistency. If the funds in the top quintile displayed consistently superior excess returns, we would expect a significant majority to remain in the top 20%. A random outcome would result in about 20% of funds dispersed evenly across the five subsequent buckets (that is, if we ignore the possibility of a fund closing down).

Figure 1 shows the results for Australian funds do not appear to be significantly different from random. Although about 30% of the top funds (42 of 138) remained in the top 20% of all funds over the subsequent five-year period, an investor selecting a fund from the top 20% of all funds in 2009 stood a 27% chance of falling into the bottom 20% of all funds or seeing his or her fund disappear along the way. Stated another way, of the 663 funds available to invest in 2009, only 42 (6%) achieved top-quintile excess returns over both the five years ended 2008 and the five years ended 2014.

The subsequent performance of funds that were in the bottom quintile in 2009 was revealing. Fully 25% of the 111 funds were liquidated or closed by 2014, and 23% remained in the bottom quintile, while only 32% managed to ‘right the ship’ and rebound to either of the top-two quintiles. Indeed, persistence has tended to be stronger for previous losers than previous winners.

This high turnover with respect to outperformance and market leadership is one reason the temptation to change managers because of poor performance can simply lead to more disappointment. For example, Goyal and Wahal (2008) found that when US institutional pension plans replaced

underperforming managers with outperforming managers, the fired managers outperformed the managers hired to replace them by 0.49% in the first year, 0.88% over the first two years, and 1.03% over the first three years.

Impact of market cycles on results of actively managed funds

One perspective with respect to market cycles is the performance of actively managed funds during bear markets (index down by a cumulative 20%. A bull markets is the converse). A common perception is that actively managed funds will outperform their benchmark in a bear market because, in theory, active managers can move into cash or rotate into defensive securities to avoid the worst of a given bear market.

In reality, the probability that these managers will move fund assets to defensive stocks or cash at just the right time is very low. Most events that result in major changes in market direction are unanticipated. To succeed, an active manager would have to not only time the market but also do so at a cost that was less than the benefit provided. Figure 2 illustrates how hard it has been for active fund managers to outperform the broad ASX accumulation index. In one of two bear markets and three out of three bull markets, the average mutual fund underperformed its stated benchmark. To win over time a manager must not only accurately time the start and end of the bear market but select winning stocks during each period.

The challenge facing investors is to correctly identify those managers who they believe may outperform in advance and stick with them through good times and bad. Finally, when deciding between an indexed or actively managed strategy, investors should not overlook the advantages in portfolio construction that well-managed indexed strategies bring to bear.

 

Sheunesu G. Juru is a Credit Research Analyst and Jeffrey Johnson is Head of Investment Strategy Group Asia-Pacific at Vanguard Investments Australia. This article is general in nature and readers should seek their own professional advice before making any financial decisions.

 

3 Comments
Geoff Warren
September 11, 2015

How you do the analysis matters at lot to what is found in this area, and the findings in the literature around whether manager performance is predictable are best described as mixed. In particular, manager performance persistence seems to exist on shorter time frames than the ‘5 year’ cycle examined in the Vanguard study. I have undertaken research along with other authors that finds significant persistence exists for Australian equity managers based on a 6-month cycle, which subsequently fades and then disappears beyond 12-months. Persistent outperformance has also been found for US mutual funds (e.g. Bollen and Busse, RFS, 2005), but it seems to be short-lived at less than three months – although the losing funds keep on losing. Findings also depend on how one adjusts for style influences, and whether information apart from just returns is taken into account in helping to predict which managers will outperform.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Gary M’s comment around the importance of analysing the managers. Just like active managers need to pick the right stocks to outperform, investors need to pick the right managers to succeed. However, this is far from easy. The Goyal and Wahal (2008) study as well as one by Jenkinson, Jones and Martinez (JF, 2015) remind that even players in the institutional end of the market can find it difficult. It is a skill possessed only by some.

My key point is that it depends how you look at the question, and how it gels with an investor’s strategy and capabilities. The Vanguard study warns that investors should be very wary about buying active Australian funds simply because they have outperformed over the last 5 years. No argument there; and investors should take note! However, this should not be interpreted as ruling out the possibility of predicting outperforming managers by either looking at the data in another way, or possessing skill in picking the best managers. The question of whether you should go active or passive debate does not have one universal answer.

Jerome Lander
September 10, 2015

Choosing a market cap weighted index to invest in is an active strategy biased towards a momentum style, yet without the sell discipline of a good momentum strategy. It is however most likely to do well in a strong bull market which is when it tends to outperform the supposedly average active manager.

Unfortunately index investing is not a good strategy for today's markets. It is cheap, but it is certainly not cheerful. Good luck to all those trusting in it to reach their objectives.

Gary M
September 10, 2015

They assume that picking active funds is nothing more than looking at past returns. But investors need to analyse the fund’s strategy, assess how the strategy contributed to the fund beating the market, form a view on whether it was luck or skill/strategy, form a view on whether the strategy is likely to work in the market in the future market environment, and whether they fund is likely to continue to follow the same strategy and have the same success.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Passive investment – an unwitting oxymoron

How to choose a good fund manager

Why an active fund should not perform like its benchmark

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Superannuation

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

Have Apple and Google reached the beginning of the end?

It might be hard to imagine a world where Apple and Google aren’t dominant, but disruption often starts with tiny cracks. AI's emergence into the mainstream might have set the stage for a new generation of leaders.

Superannuation

Did retirees lose out when they accepted defined benefit schemes?

Defined benefit pensions were designed to offer security in retirement. But new tax policies and arbitrary limits now erode their value - especially for Australians who contributed their own savings to these plans.

Property

Why Australia's agricultural land boom has stalled

Farmland prices have flatlined, bringing one of the most dramatic rural property cycles in Australian history to an end. The market for agricultural land now seems to be entering a new and more nuanced phase.

Property

The retail property niche offering income and growth

Neighbourhood shopping centres have fought off one perceived threat after another. What's more, they continue to offer secure income from blue-chip firms and other tenants linked mostly to essential spending.

ASX plans to attract more IPOs don’t go far enough

High-profile Australian stock market listings, like Guzman Y Gomez's IPO in 2024, are rare. ASIC aims to streamline the IPO process to boost listings, but faces barriers like share structures and governance.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.