The Performance of Long-Serving Active Mutual Fund Managers

Welcome to MutualFunds.com

Please help us personalize your experience and select the one that best describes you.

Your personalized experience is almost ready.

Join other Individual Investors receiving FREE personalized market updates and research. Join other Institutional Investors receiving FREE personalized market updates and research. Join other Financial Advisors receiving FREE personalized market updates and research.

Thank you!

Check your email and confirm your subscription to complete your personalized experience.

Thank you for your submission

We hope you enjoy your experience

Channels

Find the latest content and information here about the 2019 Charles Schwab Impact Conference.

Advisors

Receive email updates about fund flows, news, upcoming CE accredited webcasts from industry thought leaders and more.

Content focused on helping financial advisors build successful client relationships and grow their business.

Content geared towards helping financial advisors build better client portfolios.

Get insights on the industry trends and investment news from leading fund managers and experts.

The Performance of Long-Serving Active Mutual Fund Managers

Mutual Funds Manager
Given its importance to so many investors, it’s not surprising that there has been a tremendous amount of research into the performance of actively managed mutual funds. An overwhelming body of evidence has demonstrated that the vast majority of active funds underperform their appropriate risk-adjusted benchmarks, even before considering the impact of taxes.
In addition, because fewer funds outperform than would be randomly expected, it’s hard to know if the very small percentage of outperformers were able to produce that result based on skill or luck.

For example, Philipp Meyer-Brauns of Dimensional Fund Advisors, author of the August 2016 research paper “Mutual Fund Performance Through a Five-Factor Lens,” found that “there is strong evidence that the vast majority of active managers are unable to produce excess returns that cover their costs.” His study examined 3,870 active funds over the 32-year period from 1984 to 2015. Meyer-Brauns added that “funds do about as well as would be expected from extremely lucky funds in a zero-alpha world. This means that ex-ante, investors could not have expected any outperformance from these top performers.”

The great majority of studies on mutual fund performance have used fund-level data, examining the performance of funds rather than the performance of fund managers. And over any sample period, more than one manager may have been responsible for the management of that fund, particularly as the sample period lengthens. With this in mind, Andrew Clare, author of a September 2016 study, The Performance of Long-Serving Fund Managers explored the performance of tenured fund managers (those with at least 10 years as the sole manager of a fund) to see whether experience favorably impacted performance. It certainly seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, by restricting the pool to managers with such long experience, we have to be aware of the issue of survivorship bias – managers with poor track records aren’t likely to last 10 years. Clare’s dataset consisted of 357 managers with at least 10 years running a fund as of December 2014.

He found that for long-serving mutual fund managers, the net-of-fee return in excess of the benchmark averaged just less than 0.5 percent per year. And while the benchmark-adjusted performance figures look impressive, as noted earlier, there is an element of survivorship bias here.

Importantly, Clare also found that the excess return was negative over the last four years of the period. In other words, the collective ability of long-tenured managers to outperform their benchmarks waned over the 10-year period. Either that or their luck ran out. When he tested for persistence in performance, Clare found that the winners in one year were unlikely to be winners in the next years, as in six of the nine other years’ excess returns were negative. Within the group of long-serving mutual fund managers he studied, there was no evidence of persistence of performance.

Summary

The bottom line is that even with considerable survivorship bias in how the test was set up, deteriorating performance over the 10-year period and the lack of persistence in performance among long-serving fund managers demonstrates why Charles Ellis called active management a loser’s game. It’s not that you cannot win. It’s just that the odds of doing so are so poor it’s not prudent to try. And despite what most investors believe, it’s clear that even long and successful track records don’t provide much, if any, value for predicting future performance.

Sign up for Advisor Access

Receive email updates about best performers, news, CE accredited webcasts and more.

Popular Articles

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.


Read Next

Mutual Funds Manager

The Performance of Long-Serving Active Mutual Fund Managers

Given its importance to so many investors, it’s not surprising that there has been a tremendous amount of research into the performance of actively managed mutual funds. An overwhelming body of evidence has demonstrated that the vast majority of active funds underperform their appropriate risk-adjusted benchmarks, even before considering the impact of taxes.
In addition, because fewer funds outperform than would be randomly expected, it’s hard to know if the very small percentage of outperformers were able to produce that result based on skill or luck.

For example, Philipp Meyer-Brauns of Dimensional Fund Advisors, author of the August 2016 research paper “Mutual Fund Performance Through a Five-Factor Lens,” found that “there is strong evidence that the vast majority of active managers are unable to produce excess returns that cover their costs.” His study examined 3,870 active funds over the 32-year period from 1984 to 2015. Meyer-Brauns added that “funds do about as well as would be expected from extremely lucky funds in a zero-alpha world. This means that ex-ante, investors could not have expected any outperformance from these top performers.”

The great majority of studies on mutual fund performance have used fund-level data, examining the performance of funds rather than the performance of fund managers. And over any sample period, more than one manager may have been responsible for the management of that fund, particularly as the sample period lengthens. With this in mind, Andrew Clare, author of a September 2016 study, The Performance of Long-Serving Fund Managers explored the performance of tenured fund managers (those with at least 10 years as the sole manager of a fund) to see whether experience favorably impacted performance. It certainly seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, by restricting the pool to managers with such long experience, we have to be aware of the issue of survivorship bias – managers with poor track records aren’t likely to last 10 years. Clare’s dataset consisted of 357 managers with at least 10 years running a fund as of December 2014.

He found that for long-serving mutual fund managers, the net-of-fee return in excess of the benchmark averaged just less than 0.5 percent per year. And while the benchmark-adjusted performance figures look impressive, as noted earlier, there is an element of survivorship bias here.

Importantly, Clare also found that the excess return was negative over the last four years of the period. In other words, the collective ability of long-tenured managers to outperform their benchmarks waned over the 10-year period. Either that or their luck ran out. When he tested for persistence in performance, Clare found that the winners in one year were unlikely to be winners in the next years, as in six of the nine other years’ excess returns were negative. Within the group of long-serving mutual fund managers he studied, there was no evidence of persistence of performance.

Summary

The bottom line is that even with considerable survivorship bias in how the test was set up, deteriorating performance over the 10-year period and the lack of persistence in performance among long-serving fund managers demonstrates why Charles Ellis called active management a loser’s game. It’s not that you cannot win. It’s just that the odds of doing so are so poor it’s not prudent to try. And despite what most investors believe, it’s clear that even long and successful track records don’t provide much, if any, value for predicting future performance.

Sign up for Advisor Access

Receive email updates about best performers, news, CE accredited webcasts and more.

Popular Articles

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.

Why 30 trillion is invested in mutual funds book

Download our free report

Find out why $30 trillon is invested in mutual funds.


Read Next