Mon, May 28, 2012, 3:40 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

Market Pros Had Bad Year, So Why Not Just Buy Index Fund?

You'll have to excuse fund managers for looking like they're about to get coal in their stockings. They've had an awfully rough year.

Just one in four managers beat the major stock indexes this year, as an intensely volatile market environment drove an aversion from risk that left many dangerously exposed during pullbacks and woefully flatfooted during rallies.

The primary drivers of the underperformance were the toxicity of the European debt crisis and an uncertain recovery in the U.S.

Only 23 percent of large-cap managers beat the Standard & Poor's 500 and 27 percent outdid the Russell 1000, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

It all added up to a year in which the stocks-are-cheap mantra was wishful thinking, and one where market-movers essentially ignored company fundamentals and instead focused on larger global events for which there were no easy solutions.

For investors, it also posed the question of whether it was worth it anymore to pay for active mangers to pick stocks, or if they would just be better off going it alone with some simple fund picks based on the movement of broad market indices.

"Nine of the last 11 years my active strategies have beaten the market, and I'm underperforming this market. It's all headline risk," complains Mark Lamkin, CEO and chief investment strategist at Lamkin Wealth Management in Louisville, Ky.

"We like to move on trends. You take the last couple of weeks, we had some really hot days and we missed it. All of a sudden we're underperforming by a couple percent," he adds. "Headline risk beat the hell out of us."

The aversion to risk in turn helped drive up correlation - or the tendency of different asset classes as well as individual stocks to move up and down in tandem - making diversification and hedging more difficult and hamstringing returns.

Still, Lamkin offers few apologies for his strategy.

With so many crosscurrents happening in the world, his priority this year was making sure his clients' capital was protected, not taking excessive risks in hopes of catching a violent move higher.

"After coming through the Great Recession, most active managers are going to err on the side of caution. We got caught sitting with too much cash," he says. "As I've told clients, that doesn't mean it was the wrong move. If we were underperforming because I had bad picks or bad stocks or stayed in the market too long, at that point you should fire me...99 percent of my clients won't fire me for that."

Some investors, though, might well start asking whether they'd be just as well off buying an index fund or two on their own rather than paying the fees associated with active managers.

Underperforming managers are hoping their clients take the long view.

"The question has to be, over a long-term cycle, has the strategy provided value," says Gary Flam, portfolio manager at Bel Air Investment Advisors in Los Angeles. "You can't drive looking in the rearview mirror. From an investor aspect, what do I expect the next couple of years to hold, and given that outlook, how do I expect to outperform?"

The teetering economy has brought a new investing dynamic to the market, Flam says.

Whereas a few years ago the primary criteria was finding companies that had strong balance sheets, the focus has turned to those with stronger earnings growth potential. Many managers have been slow to adapt.

Banks, then, became less attractive despite having more than $1.5 trillion rolling around their balance sheets, while consumer staples, energy, industrials and health care became more attractive.

"Understand that six months ago everybody thought the economy was growing and we were on this sustainable path. You wanted companies that were exposed to continued economic growth," Flam says. "The last four months have laid bare that if you're positioned in companies with exposure to continued economic growth and that economic growth is put into question, your portfolio is going to suffer."

Like Lamkin, Flam expects that his clients will see the long-term value in their investment strategies and stay the course with active management.

However, should 2012 bring another rough year, that could become a tougher sell.

"This has been a difficult market to just step into and trade because of the fact that benchmarks are beating most of the managers," says Uri Landesman, president of Platinum Partners, a New York-based hedge fund. "Obviously, clients are not real happy about paying fees in those environments."

For hedge fund mangers, the baseline is different as their performance is measured in total return, not against the relative performance of a broad index.

Landesman says he has had a good year in 2011, gaining about 18 percent for clients. He is hopeful that his business can be helped by other managers who will need to window-dress their portfolios as a rough year draws to a close.

"Fund managers like these guys who are underperforming are going to want to make themselves look good for the rest of the year and make up for last ground," he says. "There's going to be an effort to pull out the year in the last month."



More From CNBC
 

93 comments

  • Chris H  •  5 months ago
    Actually fund managers have two hurdles to overcome. They have to beat the index first, and then they have to beat it by an amount exceeding their fund's expense ratio. If they beat the index by one percent, but the expense ratio for the fund is 1.5% to 2.0% the fund's investors are still in the red.
  • David  •  5 months ago
    Isn't it almost always the case that few fund managers beat the indexes?
    • Tom Jackson 5 months ago
      No, not really. Many have multi year results far exceeding indexes.
    • Fantastic Finley 5 months ago
      Yes, index funds have consistantly beat fund managers over time. The longer the time horizon, the greater the chance that an index fund will beat the vast majority of fund managers. Most informed investors (this includes institutional investors who primarily use index funds) know this. You can read a Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel or The Four Pillars of Investing by William Bernstein to confirm this information. Over long periods of time your odds go up over 70% and quite possibly over 80%. The numbers for bond index funds are even more in the favor of index investing.
    • Anon 5 months ago
      yes
  • Johnny Bravo  •  5 months ago
    The main issue now seems to be that stocks all move in lock step with the market as a whole. A company can report great earnings but if there is bad news from Europe, the entire market, including your stock, goes down. Some stocks might be more volatile than the market as a whole but everything moves in the same direction every day like a school of fish. Almost impossible to beat the market as a whole in this environment. Any small advantage a stock picker might have is lost in fees and trading expenses.
  • Trajan Rex  •  5 months ago
    "Taking the Long View" will tilt your decision even more heavily in favor of buying index funds. Active managment shennanigans and the resulting underperformance become even more apparent as you examine even longer the data streams.
  • bob  •  5 months ago
    it really is amazing to hear money managers argue that they will beat the market using their superior ability - but this year was so confusing, it's not fair! lemme try again! the whole point of a fat fee would be for that manager to identify the trend/pattern and profit from it, yes? and they weren't even close to random normalization - they consistently made terrible decisions.
  • Walter Johnson  •  5 months ago
    Dow Jones Nov 30 1911: 80.96
    Dow Jones Nov 30 2011: 12040.61

    So in the last 100 years the stock market has returned 5.1 %. And 5.1% is pretty good. You just have to be in it for the long run.

    A = P * ( (1+r) ^ n)
    A = Ending value after n years
    P = Starting value
    r = APR
    ^ = take (1+r) to the power of n years.
    • Sante d 5 months ago
      Are those numbers corrected for dividends ?
    • Walter Johnson 5 months ago
      You can search for "what is the typical dividend payout ratio" one reference I found was 1.13% which is pretty realistic. So I guess this would make the yield about 6.2%.

      Still not 8% and as you know, with compound interest there is a huge difference between 6.2% and 8%
    • Walter Johnson 5 months ago
      If the stock market returned 8% (6.87 APR and 1.13 dividends) the dow would be at 62208.74 right now.
  • Name  •  5 months ago
    S & P 500 - Mar 1, 1999 - 1275
    S & P 500 - Dec 2, 2011 - 1244

    Wall St. executives have made lots of big bonuses over this time (even with their reckless mismanagement necessitating taxpayer bailouts). Inside traders (including Congressmen) have made lots of money on information not available to the public.

    But for the public as whole the performance of the stock market has been pathetic. Why put money at risk if you literally have earned nothing on that risk over more than 10 years?
    • Edward F 5 months ago
      S&P 500 Mar 2009-666.89
      S&P 500 Dec 2011-1244

      Performance seems pretty good to me if you keep your ears shut from listening to all retards out there calling themselves experts.
  • u22  •  5 months ago
    stock picking and market timing are a zero sum game about the index result. For every manager that beats, one loses. Then they take fees. Active management is like roulette, a slightly less than 50% chance of winning.
  • P  •  5 months ago
    It is not hard to lose someone elses money. Ask MF Global.
    • Nels 5 months ago
      Barack Hussein is good a losing other peoples money!! .... Solyndra, etc., etc.
  • Anon  •  5 months ago
    My index ETF portfolio is up 1% ytd. S&P is down 1.1%, and Comrade Buffett down 3.3%. Buffett down 21.93% since market high in Q4'07
    • YReader 5 months ago
      Nice going Anon.. Hopefully you got some dividends along the way
    • Nels 5 months ago
      Comrade Buffet said he wanted to donate his money to the IRS!! .... Would you invest in a Buffet fund with idiot statement like that???
    • Teacher Of Truth 5 months ago
      Buffet doesn't want to donate to the IRS. He is fighting hard not to pay $700 billion in taxes. He wants other high income folks to pay more in taxes. His capital gains and sweet dividents from companies like GE are taxed at only 15%.
  • wilbur  •  5 months ago
    A Random walk down wall street by Burton Malkeil shows that over the long term 10, 20 or 30 years no fund manager consistently beats the market. For the price you pay for active funds it simply is not worth it. The emperor has no clothes, but people still actively invest. When I gamble I buy lottery tickets or go to vegas. When I invest I buy index funds both stock and bond funds and rebalance yearly. I think it is the only rational way to go.
  • Frank  •  5 months ago
    In almost all cases, Index funds long term results beat actively managed funds. The reason is simple; much lower management costs.

    As for yield, there are index funds with high yields; you just need to pick the right index. For example, a utility index or a REIT index.
  • Obama the Great  •  5 months ago
    I saw a different study where the S&P 500 Index fund with its low management fees beat out ~95% of all mutual funds over the course of 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. Mutual Funds often have high expense ratios and low dividends for reinvesting.
  • quantumenig  •  5 months ago
    Telecoms, consumer staples, MLP's, REITS, utilities. Just buy 'em, hold 'em, and over time watch the dividends and distributions accumulate. Dont sweat the ups and downs. Patience pays.....
  • sCrL  •  5 months ago
    1 in 4 what a joke. Get real, inform yourself, invest & manage your money yourself. I paper traded for a couple years, now invested my own real money for 4 years. Despite the huge downturn in markets these last years I am doing a lot better than anyone I know. Don't trust someone else to care for your money better than you would.
  • A Yahoo! User  •  5 months ago
    In my limited experience, stock picking gurus seem to focus on high Beta stocks, so naturally they do better than the averages when the market is up and Worse when the market is down. So nothing magical here. With managed funds you're just paying some one to find and make high risK bets for you. I perfer to choose my own risks and avoid paying aryone else.
  • phunk  •  5 months ago
    The statistics since the Investment Company Act of 1940 was passed are almost always 25% beat the index and 75% dont. Why use a fund then? Because they manage risk on the downside. My funds arent up as big this week as the index's but when the S+P was down 14% they were only down 10%. That is more important to me than gains because when you start with 100k and lose 10%, a 10% gain the next month doesnt get you back to your 100k yet. Thats why you use managers right there.
  • Walter Johnson  •  5 months ago
    I challenge anyone one to find an 80 (approximate life expectancy) year time frame where the stock market returned at least 8%.
  • steven  •  5 months ago
    The problem with the "experts" is that they have a built in conflict of interest. They make more money when they have you in stocks (they call them "equities" to sound "smart") than they do when you invest in their government bond portfolios ("fixed incomes"). This is because they can charge more for paying someone to manage a stock portfolio than one with government bonds. So they always say "buy and hold (stocks)." The "experts" claim all the market and economic turmoil is just a "cycle" and that in the long term the world's economy must continue to grow so you need stocks to profit from that long term growth.

    But how can there be long term growth in a world where there's no such thing as fiscally responsible government anymore? Until almost the end of the twentieth century, governments usually balanced their budgets. But now they rarely do that because they have learned that there is no political price to be paid for creating all this debt and the extra government spending is politically useful to politicians. They can use all this extra spending at tax payer expense to buy the political support of major companies (through government contracts and other special deals). And they can similarly reward major unions and professional associations while the tax payers get left "holding the bag" twice, at tax time and later when excess government debt poisons their investments.

    So while you need a return on your money to protect yourself from the risk of inflation, and this inevitably means transactional costs for you, you CANNOT TRUST investment "advice." You must ask yourself what your "advisor" has to gain from your following his or her suggestions.

    There's no getting around the fact that you must be proactive. This necessarily may involve buying stocks in companies that are likely to do well in the FUTURE but you cannot simply invest blindly with your stock broker. You MUST closely follow business and politics because they are interrelated with how your investments will do. Political decisions to run up debt will unavoidably effect how the economy and your investments do. So you must make the best decisions you can on the best information you can get.

    It's going to be a rough deal because most of the information available to you is NOT unbiased. But you have no choice. And it will not be an easy assignment. However if you are smart enough and do your homework, you just might beat the professional "advice" and also avoid over paying your financial services company.
  • Bob J  •  5 months ago
    Just one out of four? This proves that they are no more than bad gamblers. Just by chance alone it should have been two out of four.
Loading...
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER