Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 337

Three fascinating lessons overlooked by investors

Investing is a field where experience matters a great deal. And, yet, we’re all prone to biases and leaning into heuristics that may not have strong empirical underpinnings. That’s why it is important to stay current with the latest research in our field, challenging our own beliefs in the process.

There is no shortage of literature on behavioral economics and asset allocation. In the holiday spirit of distilling things down, though, here are seven studies that I thought presented fascinating insights. Even better, almost all of them are from the past few years -- in other words, not the Markowitz paper you read about at university -- tucked into three specific themes.

1. Funds managed by a single manager tend to perform better

That was one of the key conclusions from a study published in 2016 by the Financial Analysts Journal. The authors - Goldman, Sun, and Zhou - identified some intuitive yet unappreciated results:

“...we identified the organizational design behind the loss of abnormal returns associated with less concentrated portfolios. In particular, we found that mutual funds run by a single manager tend to have a much higher portfolio concentration, both across and within industries, than funds run by multiple managers.”

The traditional narrative is that two heads are better than one, and no doubt there are many situations where that is the case. What the authors found, though, was that more heads lead to more diverse portfolios that likely dilute the value added by the individual portfolio managers’ highest-conviction holdings.

It is hard to overstate how diluted down these portfolios can get. The authors looked at 35,253 U.S. mutual fund portfolios and found that the average number of holdings was 144 positions. This is way beyond what is necessary to capture the benefits of diversification - 86% of possible tracking error is reduced with just 30 holdings, according to a 1999 study by Sturz and Price - and may help explain the widespread phenomenon of most active managers underperforming after fees and expenses.

The authors weren’t sure whether there were other factors in play. For example, multi-manager funds tend to have larger asset bases than single-manager funds, so maybe the issue was less about portfolio dilution and more about size-driven headwinds. They also discovered:

“We further found that when funds’ management designs are changed from single manager to multiple managers (or from multiple to single), portfolio concentration decreases (increases) and performance deteriorates (improves).”

The study also has unflattering conclusions regarding older funds run by long-serving managers.

2. Active management can add value when it is actually active 

Not all active management (active as in not passive) is very active. Morningstar’s Caquineau, Möttölä, and Schumacher found in Europe that 20.2% of the European large-cap funds they studied had a three-year average active share below 60%. In other words, the funds were closet indexers.

Research suggests managers with higher active share on average better those with low active share (the closet indexers). A 2017 study by Lazard Asset Management’s Khusainova and Mier found that, when global and international funds were split into quintiles based on active share, the best-performing quintile was that with the highest active share while the worst-performing quintile was the one with the lowest active share.

Given that the previously discussed study found that portfolio concentration was aligned with performance, that may not be too surprising. And yet, many investors do not make this distinction when discussing active management.

An even more interesting twist into active share is that Cremers and Pareek found in a study published in the Journal of Financial Economics that high active share alone was not indicative of outperformance. The authors found only portfolios with high active share and patient holding strategies (holding durations of over two years) delivered outperformance.

3. Australia’s home bias is off the charts

Home bias is a global phenomenon, however, the magnitude of Australia’s home bias is astronomical compared to similar Western markets. A Vanguard paper that I recently highlighted notes that the value of listed Australian equities makes up only 2% of the global market and yet Australians collectively hold 67% of their portfolios in Australian shares.

Granted, there are some good reasons for Australians to be overweight their home country - franking credits and a long history of economic excellence being key among them - but the 65% gap dwarfs that of the UK (19%) and US (29%).

What makes the outsized home bias gap even more puzzling is that Australian equities have a lower unhedged long-term correlation to international equities (0.58) than the UK (0.66) and US (0.76). In other words, Australians have historically reaped far more bang for their diversification buck from diversifying into global equities than the UK and US and yet our home bias is far, far stronger.

 

Joe Magyer is the Chief Investment Officer of Lakehouse Capital, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691) and has been prepared without taking account of the reader’s financial situation. Lakehouse Capital is a growth-focused, high-conviction boutique seeking long-term, asymmetric opportunities. 

For more articles and papers by Lakehouse Capital, please click here.

 

4 Comments
Joe Magyer
January 08, 2020

Hi Howard. The different study results aren't mutually exclusive. The majority of active managers underperform their benchmarks net of fees, however, on average the ones that are most likely to outperform are those with high active share.

Ben
December 19, 2019

Interesting, thanks for some more biases to be aware of and think about...

(-) It's funny that the Cremers/Perek study found best performance for active managers with long holding times, because at first read that sounds like an oxymoron! My first image of an "active" manager would be closer to a trader than a holder of shares. This almost sounds more like a combination of active stock picking with "passive" stock holding?

(-) With respect to the Australian home bias, wasn't there a study at one point that compared AU and US stock markets, and found that in the long term, both were almost equivalent? I want to say something like 9.5% and 10% respectively. So as you say, global diversification might have been a benefit, but those numbers are both still pretty nice! Add that to the dividends/franking credits situation, and the cost/difficulty of investing globally (perhaps brokers
and global funds used to be fewer in number, with higher costs and fees), and I'm not really surprised by the continuing home bias.

Joe Magyer
January 08, 2020

Hi Ben. On active vs. passive, I'd note that 'active' here doesn't speak to trading activity but rather than the manager is making active allocation decisions as opposed to passively mimicking an index.

On the home bias, it is true that the long-term returns of the US and Australian markets are broadly comparable, however, the correlation to international equities (0.58) suggests investors have historically significantly reduced portfolio-level volatility through international diversification without sacrificing a great deal in terms of total returns. It is also worth noting that Australia's returns are juiced by such a long stretch without a recession, a situation that will change at some point.

Howard
December 19, 2019

How do the statements on active management marry with the S&P (SPIVA) data which shows 75% of active managers underperform the index after fees.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Is your portfolio too heavy on technology stocks?

Four themes to set your portfolio for economic recovery

Let’s clarify growth/defensive and move forward

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Graeme Shaw on why investing is at a pivotal moment

Company profits have not improved for many years but higher valuations have been driven by falling rates and excess liquidity. Conditions do not suit a value and contrarian manager but here are some opportunities.

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

11 key findings on retirement dreams during the pandemic

A mid-pandemic survey of over 1,000 people near or in retirement found three in four are not confident how long their money will last. Only 18% felt their money was safe during a strong economic downturn.

Bank scorecard 2020: when will the mojo return?

Banks severely cut dividends in 2020 but are expected to improve payments in 2021. History provides clues to when the banks will return to their 2019 levels of profitability, but who is positioned the best?

Generational wealth transfers will affect all investors

It's not only that 60 is the new 40, but 80 is the new 60. Many Baby Boomers spend up in retirement and are less inclined to leave a nest egg to their children. The ways wealth transfers will affect all investors.

Latest Updates

Shares

Hamish Douglass on big tech and life after COVID

On the sidelines of the Morningstar Conference, the Magellan co-founder reflects on the pandemic and which sectors are set to gain and lose. He says we were lucky the pandemic hit when it did (videos and transcripts).

Superannuation

Cost of running an SMSF receives updated judgement

Administration costs can rise for complexity, especially owning property in an SMSF, but fees are highly competitive from a wide range of service providers. The break-even cost is less than previously reported.

SMSF strategies

Three areas SMSFs should consider outsourcing

SMSF trustees often cite ‘control of my investments’ as the number one motivation for setting up their own fund. But it still makes sense to outsource some parts of a well-diversified portfolio.

Retirement

Apparently, retirees should learn to SKI

The Retirement Income Review demonstrated limited understanding of the risks faced by self-funded retirees implementing rational human behaviour. Spending to qualify for the age pension is not a solution.

Retirement

7-point checklist for managing the uncertain timing of death

Average life expectancies are a weak predictor of individual outcomes, and it's better to consider a range of probable lifespans. A plan that lasts to the average will disappoint every second retiree.

Exchange traded products

'Quality' ETFs under the microscope

Interest in 'quality' factor ETFs has increased this year, helped by very attractive returns. However, not all ETFs are created alike and there are divergences in portfolio traits which investors can identify.

Shares

Is growth of zombie companies real or fiction?

Much has been written about the rise of 'zombie firms' which should have gone bankrupt, but new research should be comforting to economists and investors alike, with focus on a particular segment.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.