(April 29, 2013)
The entire financial management industry is a profit-skimming rentier arrangement.
It may seem uncharitable to note that only .4%--that's 4/10th of 1%--of mutual fund managers
outperform a plain-vanilla S&P 500 index fund over 10 years, but that is being generous:
by other measures, it's an infinitesimal 1/10th of 1%.
Most Hedge Funds Underperforming The S&P 500 For Fifth Year In A Row -
Full YTD Performance (Zero Hedge)
Beginner's Strategy: Investing in Low-Cost Index Funds
According to the folks at the Motley Fool, only ten of the ten thousand actively managed
mutual funds available managed to beat the S&P 500 consistently over the course of the past
ten years.
Consider the following: a quick glance at Yahoo Finance reveals the average expense ratio
for growth and income style mutual funds is 1.29%. As a result, approximately $1,883 of
every $10,000 invested over the course of ten years will go to the fund company in the form
of expenses. Compare that to the Vanguard 500 fund, designed to mirror the S&P 500 index,
which boasts an annual expense ratio of only 0.12%, resulting in ten-year compounded expense
of $154 for every $10,000 invested.
Frequent contributor B.C. recently screened 24,711 funds on Yahoo Finance's fund
screener and 17,785 funds on the Wall Street Journal's online screening tool.
The results were sobering, to say the least: using a basic set of criteria, the first screen
turned up a mere 5 managers who beat the S&P 500 index over five years. Using a slightly
different set of criteria, the second screen found 71 funds out of 17,785 outperformed
the index over ten years.
That's .4% of managed funds, i.e. an index fund beat 99.6% of all fund managers.
So what do we get for investing our capital in mutual funds and hedge funds?
The warm and fuzzy feeling that we've contributed the liquidity needed to grease
a monumental skimming operation. Ten out of 10,000 is simply signal noise; in effect,
nobody beats an index fund.
The entire financial management industry is a rentier arrangement: they skim immense
profits and return no productive yield at all. This is of course a key characteristic
of the neofeudal debtocracy that is the U.S. economy: various cartels and
state fiefdoms operate rentier arrangements that skim a percentage of the national income,
protected by the state and endless PR from any market forces or transparency.
B.C.'s analysis and commentary:
Here are the most recent results for the quarter ending Q1 '13 for mutual fund managers'
performance vs. the total return to the S&P 500
using the
Mutual Fund Screener from Yahoo Finance (data from Morningstar):
First Screen Criteria:
All funds.
Manager tenure 5 years or more.
No load.
Management fee of less than 1%.
YTD: >5%
1-yr.: >10%
3-yr.: >5%
5-yr.: >0%
Number of managers who beat the S&P 500 over the past five years: 0
Second Screen Criteria:
All funds.
Manager tenure 5 years or more.
Load less than 2%.
Management fee less than 2%.
YTD: >5%
1-yr.: >10%
3-yr.: >5%
5-yr.: >0%
Number of managers who beat the S&P 500 over the past five years: 5
The screener includes a universe of 24,711 funds, which means that those who
"beat the market" were in the fifth-order Pareto distribution of 2-3 out of 10,000.
Using similar criteria for the WSJ.com Mutual Fund Screener without the option of choosing manager
tenure but including Lipper relative performance to peers, load-adjusted performance,
and with an A-AAA rating, only 71 funds (fewer managers because of multiple fund management
by a manager) of 17,785 matched or beat the S&P 500 over 10 years.
Once again, evidence of a third- or fourth-order Pareto distribution of 2-4 out of 1,000
being "winners."
The results of the past 10-12 years during the ongoing secular bear market clearly
demonstrate that the "money management" industry exists primarily, if not now exclusively,
for the benefit of those who "manage" other people's money, not the investors/shareholders
of the funds.
By definition "hedge" funds are no better, i.e., they hedge investors' returns to no better
than cash:
Hedge Funds: Going nowhere fast (The Economist)
The past year has been another mediocre one for hedge funds. The HFRX, a widely used
measure of industry returns, is up by just 3%, compared with an 18% rise in the S&P 500
share index. Although it might be possible to shrug off one year’s underperformance, the
hedgies’ problems run much deeper.
The S&P 500 has now outperformed its hedge-fund rival for ten straight years, with the
exception of 2008 when both fell sharply. A simple-minded investment portfolio—60% of
it in shares and the rest in sovereign bonds—has delivered returns of more than 90% over
the past decade, compared with a meagre 17% after fees for hedge funds (see chart). As
a group, the supposed sorcerers of the financial world have returned less than inflation.
B.C.'s commentary resumes:
That there are so many "managers" in the game with AUMM (assets under mis-management), all
manner of ETFs, and now pension funds "discovering" index funds and index ETFs, all trying
to match or "beat the market", is a primary reason why the overwhelming majority of "
managers" will underperform and thus add no value to an investors' portfolio.
Eventually, a growing plurality of so-called "investors" will discover that the stock market
is not for wealth accumulation for the majority of "investors" but a wealth-transfer
mechanism from the second 9-19% with any financial surplus to the top 0.1-1% who hold a
disproportionately large share of financial wealth, and to the so-called money "managers"
who benefit from fee income generated by the wealth-transfer process.
However, the resources of the financial services industry generated by fee income will
continue to fund mass-media advertising/propaganda in the ongoing attempt to convince
the top next 19% that they can "beat the market" if only they turn over their savings
to the industry to "manage". Little do most "investors" know that they are funding the
perpetuation of the industry's fraud, their own underperformance, and failing to match
risk-adjusted returns of cash and fixed income after fees, taxes, and inflation over a cycle.
Now, imagine what would happen to the financial services and banking industries and financial
print, broadcast, and online media were these unsanitized facts about dismal money "manager"
performance to be widely reported and internalized by a significant minority or small
plurality of investors or the public at large.
Like the fractional reserve banking system, the entire financial services industry is a
fraud.
Thank you, B.C. In my analysis, the financial services industry is simply one of
many state-enabled cartels and rentier arrangements that are immune to market forces,
price discovery and the bright light of truth.
Special "the end of the world as we know it" sale on seeds from our longtime
supplier Everlasting Seeds:
TEOTWAWKI SALE! 20% OFF!
In light of the calamitous predictions regarding the Global Coastal Event [Clif High],
Korean Nuclear tensions, and Solar/EMPs “Kill Shot” {Ed Dames}, we thought we'd offer
folks the largest discount we've ever given. We're not 'fortune tellers' here, or Seers,
or 'Intuitives': but if even ONE of these predictions come to pass, it'll definitely make
for a 'bad hair day' {week/month/year...} for all of us...
Things are falling apart--that is obvious. But why are they falling
apart? The reasons are complex and global. Our economy and society have structural
problems that cannot be solved by adding debt to debt. We are becoming poorer, not
just from financial over-reach, but from fundamental forces that are not easy to identify
or understand. We will cover the five core reasons why things are falling apart:
1. Debt and financialization
2. Crony capitalism and the elimination of accountability
3. Diminishing returns
4. Centralization
5. Technological, financial and demographic changes in our economy
Complex systems weakened by diminishing returns collapse under their
own weight and are replaced by systems that are simpler, faster and affordable. If
we cling to the old ways, our system will disintegrate. If we want sustainable prosperity
rather than collapse, we must embrace a new model that
is Decentralized, Adaptive, Transparent and Accountable (DATA).
We are not powerless. Not accepting responsibility and being powerless are two sides of
the same coin: once we accept responsibility, we become powerful.
Kindle edition: $9.95
print edition: $24 on Amazon.com
To receive a 20% discount
on the print edition: $19.20 (retail $24), follow the link, open a Createspace account and enter
discount code SJRGPLAB. (This is the only way I can offer a discount.)
NOTE: gifts/contributions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email
remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Karl L. ($50), for yet another astoundingly generous contribution
to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
|
|
Thank you, Helen S.C. ($10), for yet another wondrously generous contribution
to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
|
"This guy is THE leading visionary on reality.
He routinely discusses things which no one else has talked about, yet,
turn out to be quite relevant months later."
--Walt Howard, commenting about CHS on another blog.
Or send him coins, stamps or quatloos via mail--please
request P.O. Box address.
Subscribers ($5/mo) and contributors of $50 or more
this year will receive a
weekly email of exclusive (though not necessarily coherent) musings and amusings.
At readers' request, there is also a $10/month option.
What subscribers are saying about the Musings
(Musings samples here):
The "unsubscribe" link is for when you find the usual drivel here
insufferable.
Your readership is greatly appreciated with or without a donation.
All content, HTML coding, format design, design elements and images copyright ©
2013 Charles Hugh Smith, All rights
reserved in all media, unless otherwise credited or noted.
I am honored if you link to this essay, or print a copy for your own use.
Terms of Service:
All content on this blog is provided by Trewe LLC for informational purposes only. The owner of this
blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information
on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable
for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or
use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at
anytime and without notice.