FAIL: 84% Of Actively Managed Mutual Funds Did Worse Than Their Benchmarks In 2011

sadtrader 1

BOSTON (AP) — Managers of stock mutual funds had an unusually tough time beating the market last year, with fewer than one in five achieving that goal, a study found. That’s the lowest number in the 10 years the study has been conducted.

About 84 per cent of U.S. stock funds that are actively managed, rather than passively tracking an index, underperformed versus the Standard & Poor’s indexes representing the market segment the funds invest in. That’s according to S&P Indices, which on Monday released its 10th annual fund performance scorecard.

The market researcher found that fund performance was better over the past several years than in 2011, although a majority of funds still fell short. Over three years, from 2009 through 2011, about 56 per cent of stock funds underperformed relative to S&P benchmarks. Over five years, 61 per cent underperformed.

Going back 10 years, the average percentage of funds underperforming has been about 57 per cent. Before last year, the worst year for manager performance had been 2006, when nearly 68 per cent of funds were beaten by benchmark indexes.

Over the last 10 years, S&P says a majority of funds beat the market in just four times. The best year for fund performance was 2009, with 58 per cent outperforming.

S&P found that funds specializing in growth stocks were the biggest underperformers last year. Growth stocks are priced high relative to the earnings of the underlying company because investors expect them to grow more rapidly than lower-priced value stocks. S&P found that nearly 96 per cent of large-cap growth funds — those investing in stocks with large market values — underperformed their S&P benchmarks last year. In contrast, managers of large-cap value funds fared much better, with just 54 per cent underperforming.

More often than not, a majority of funds underperform because returns are reduced by investment fees to cover fund operations, including costs to pay managers and analysts who support them. Those fees are difficult to offset, even if a manager is a strong stock-picker. At actively managed funds, expense ratios typically range from 0.5 per cent to 2 per cent. That’s the amount investors pay each year, expressed as a percentage of a fund’s assets.

Index funds charge lower fees — as little as 0.06 per cent at some funds — because they don’t rely on professionals to pick stocks. Index funds are designed to track an index, delivering investment returns that are slightly smaller than the benchmark to account for fees covering operations.

There are, of course, many examples of fund managers whose investment-picking skills earn their investors bigger returns than their benchmark indexes. But a wealth of research shows the ranks of such star managers are relatively small. And their record of outperformance is typically fleeting measured against the decades needed to save for retirement.

NOW WATCH: Money & Markets videos

Want to read a more in-depth view on the trends influencing Australian business and the global economy? BI / Research is designed to help executives and industry leaders understand the major challenges and opportunities for industry, technology, strategy and the economy in the future. Sign up for free at research.businessinsider.com.au.