Track Record Investing

"Most investors follow the crowd down the path to comfortable mediocrity," says David Swensen in Pioneering Portfolio Management.1 Anxious to capture the gains that come with a winning mutual fund manager, manager pickers blindly chase a hot performing fund manager's track record, failing to realize their odds for future success have vastly diminished.

Figure 5-1 shows the results of a study using Morningstar data reflecting the performance of active fund managers for the 17 years from 1998 to 2014. The chart depicts how an average of only 9 funds of the top 100 fund managers repeated their performance the following year. In the years 1999 to 2000, 2007 to 2008, and 2008 to 2009, none of them repeated their previous year's top 100 performance.

Figure 5-1

Pick Your Manager
Pick Your Manager

Variations in manager performance are a function of luck and the random rotation of the style of their fund. When a particular manager's investment style is rewarded by the market, that manager is often credited with skill. As market conditions change, however, so does the performance of fund managers. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 track the rankings of the top 10 mutual fund managers in a given year and subsequent time periods. These charts reveal how quickly a "top" fund manager can slide to the bottom. For example, Figure 5-3 shows that Dynamic Gold & Precious Metals I had the highest performance out of 6,446 mutual funds in 2010. In 2011, however, the fund slipped to 6,389th place, landed in 6,648th place in 2012, and ominously, no data is available for 2013. The data contained in these two figures reveal many other examples of fund performance that sharply declined.

Figure 5-2

Figure 5-3

Top-performing funds have failed to maintain their position throughout a meaningful subsequent period. As Bob Dylan said, "the first ones now will later be last, for the times they are a changin."2

An analysis of the Morningstar database of 231 mutual funds with 10 years of returns is shown in Figure 5-4. The top graph shows the performance rankings of these 231 funds from best to worst (left to right) for the first 5-year period from 2004 to 2008. Then the same order of fund rankings is maintained in the bottom graph in order to see if fund performance was repeated in the years 2009 to 2013. Based on the above studies, it should come as no surprise that many of the managers who outperformed their peers in the first 5-year period did not do so in the second 5-year period, and vice versa.

Figure 5-4

Another tracking mechanism that can cause confusion is the reporting of mutual fund returns, often inflated when compared to actual long-term returns. The discrepancy arises from neglecting to account for funds that have closed or merged, resulting in the higher average returns of only surviving funds included in calculations. When funds go under, their records are stricken from databases, creating a survivorship bias. This bias inflates the remaining funds' average returns by 21%, according to CRSP data cited by John Bogle3. A recent Morningstar study found that for the ten years ending March 31, 2014, only 53% of actively managed funds across all categories survived the period4.

    -1 Swensen, Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment (New York: The Free Press, 2000).
    -2 Bob Dylan, The Times They Are a-Changin', song, Columbia Studios, 1964.
    -3 John C. Bogle, "The Arithmetic of 'All-In' Investment Expenses". Financial Analysts Journal, January/February 2014, pp 13-21.
    -4 Michael Rawson, "Survivorship Bias," Seeking Alpha, April 11, 2014
Step 5David SwensenMorningstarCenter for Research on Securities PricesCRSP