Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • username12345678
    • By username12345678 8th Oct 17, 9:15 AM
    • 127Posts
    • 50Thanks
    username12345678
    Grist to the mill in the Active vs Passive debate (Morningstar research)
    • #1
    • 8th Oct 17, 9:15 AM
    Grist to the mill in the Active vs Passive debate (Morningstar research) 8th Oct 17 at 9:15 AM
    Success rates for active European funds over 3/5/10/15 years versus their benchmarks.


    http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=827622
Page 1
  • jamesd
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:56 AM
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 17, 12:56 AM
    The usual sort of silliness, asserting that it's impossible to avoid underperformers (while giving a rule that identified them!) and pick winners. Pretending that active funds are trackers and testing them as such while completely ignoring changes in human manager.

    I don't think I've ever held a Europe excluding UK fund in my SIPP or ISA that failed to beat trackers and index over useful time frames, though I'm not sure about an emerging Europe fund I held quite a few years back. The three I hold today in pensions have all beaten the relevant index while I've held them, aside from relatively short periods perhaps. I don't think that I'm the only person who can pay attention. I do agree with this, though:

    "buying an expensive actively managed fund will almost certainly prove a mistake"

    Interesting but unsurprising to see that the most expensive active funds did much less well than the cheapest. Unsurprising because those are probably the ones sold to audiences who are offered restricted choices. Same for trackers. That does suggest an interesting selection rule, though: underperformance is concentrated in the most expensive quintile, avoid them.
    Last edited by jamesd; 09-10-2017 at 1:07 AM.
    • Linton
    • By Linton 9th Oct 17, 9:25 AM
    • 8,332 Posts
    • 8,225 Thanks
    Linton
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 17, 9:25 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 17, 9:25 AM
    Let's put this "research" to the test.

    Say I want to invest in Large Cap Germany. Apparently only 45% of German active funds beat "the index" over 3 years and 42% over 5 years..

    A quick search through trustnet and morningstar identifies only 2 large cap German GBP funds in the right morningstar category:

    Allianz German Equity: 3 yr return 75.2%, no figure for 5 year
    Baring German Growth: 3 yr return 82.6%, 5 yr return 137.8%

    A typical German large cap index fund:
    Amundi ETF MSCI Germany (GBP): 3 yr return 58.2%, 5 yr return 91.9%

    So our funds show a large out-performance. Where are all the underperforming German active funds? Or perhaps where are the "good" German index funds? Are we lucky in the UK that only very good German funds are available?

    And another point.....
    They claim that 29% of German active funds have beaten the index over 15 years. For 29% to be the nearest whole number thery must have found at least 17 of them (6/17=0.294). And its the same % for Switzerland. There arent any GBP funds that have been around for 15 years.

    Finally....

    Why are all the examples large cap?
    • capital0ne
    • By capital0ne 9th Oct 17, 1:07 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    capital0ne
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 17, 1:07 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 17, 1:07 PM
    All this type of research is based on 20:20 hindsight - totally useless for any future planning
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 9th Oct 17, 1:50 PM
    • 3,460 Posts
    • 4,068 Thanks
    ColdIron
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 17, 1:50 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 17, 1:50 PM
    Yesterday you advocated momentum investing, the entire premise being to back yesterday's winners tomorrow
    • GDB2222
    • By GDB2222 9th Oct 17, 2:07 PM
    • 14,009 Posts
    • 75,385 Thanks
    GDB2222
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:07 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 17, 2:07 PM
    Let's put this "research" to the test.

    Say I want to invest in Large Cap Germany. Apparently only 45% of German active funds beat "the index" over 3 years and 42% over 5 years..

    A quick search through trustnet and morningstar identifies only 2 large cap German GBP funds in the right morningstar category:

    Allianz German Equity: 3 yr return 75.2%, no figure for 5 year
    Baring German Growth: 3 yr return 82.6%, 5 yr return 137.8%

    A typical German large cap index fund:
    Amundi ETF MSCI Germany (GBP): 3 yr return 58.2%, 5 yr return 91.9%

    So our funds show a large out-performance. Where are all the underperforming German active funds? Or perhaps where are the "good" German index funds? Are we lucky in the UK that only very good German funds are available?

    And another point.....
    They claim that 29% of German active funds have beaten the index over 15 years. For 29% to be the nearest whole number thery must have found at least 17 of them (6/17=0.294). And its the same % for Switzerland. There arent any GBP funds that have been around for 15 years.

    Finally....

    Why are all the examples large cap?
    Originally posted by Linton
    Your example only looks at funds still going. If there are any which have performed very badly, it's quite likely the managers will have 'restructured' the funds, so they are not in the current statistics.

    What we need are not the funds still going but the totality of funds, including the ones that have been closed or altered.

    I agree, by the way, that a group comprising just two funds is not big enough to get any useful stats from.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 9th Oct 17, 4:13 PM
    • 10,323 Posts
    • 6,620 Thanks
    bigadaj
    • #7
    • 9th Oct 17, 4:13 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Oct 17, 4:13 PM
    Your example only looks at funds still going. If there are any which have performed very badly, it's quite likely the managers will have 'restructured' the funds, so they are not in the current statistics.

    What we need are not the funds still going but the totality of funds, including the ones that have been closed or altered.

    I agree, by the way, that a group comprising just two funds is not big enough to get any useful stats from.
    Originally posted by GDB2222
    More simplistically they seem to have chosen some very bizarre sectors and areas, I wasn't aware of any Swiss only funds available but I suppose there might be.
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 9th Oct 17, 6:40 PM
    • 899 Posts
    • 744 Thanks
    LHW99
    • #8
    • 9th Oct 17, 6:40 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Oct 17, 6:40 PM
    And how large would your portfolio have to be that investing in a Swiss only fund makes sense?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,633Posts Today

6,192Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin