In the active vs.
passive investing fight, we’re firmly on the side of passive investors. |
"It may sound un-American not to try to be the winner, but when investing, capitalism favors a passive approach."
[Tweet This]
Gauging a Fund's Performance
Standard & Poor's, publishers of the popular Standard & Poor's 500 Index of U.S. large company stocks, conducts extensive research on fund versus index management performance. S&P recently released its June 30, 2013, report, which is summarized below:
Percentage of U.S. Equity Funds Outperformed by Benchmarks 06/30/13
Fund Category | Comparison Index | One Year % | Three Year % | Five Year % |
All Large-Cap Funds | S&P 500 | 59.58% | 85.95% | 79.46% |
All Mid-Cap Funds | S&P MidCap 400 | 68.88% | 85.78% | 81.98% |
All Small-Cap Funds | S&P SmallCap 600 | 64.27% | 80.19% | 77.88% |
All Multi-Cap Funds | S&P Composite 1500 | 63.41% | 84.31% | 82.57% |
Over five years, roughly 80% of actively managed funds underperform their benchmark. An individual investor has a much higher probability of earning the market return in a passively managed index. They have a great risk (about 80%) of under-performing in an actively managed fund. Why take that risk? Add to this debate that past performance is not a guarantee of future returns (one of the top 20% of funds today has a low probability of staying in the top 20% over the next five years), and you have a very sound argument for passive management.
It's a free country, but don't argue with the facts. It may sound un-American not to try to be the winner, but when investing, capitalism favors a passive approach.