For investors who desire a moderate allocation portfolio who do not desire to put in the effort to identify funds that have a history of doing better.......
Does investing in funds
that have a history of doing better result in a portfolio that performs better in the future?
John Bogle is fond of saying that "past is not prologue"
And MJG has frequently posted about the lack of persistence in mutual fund performance, in other words, invest in a list of the best performers over the past 10 years, and it is not likely they will be in the list of best performers for the coming 10 years.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=50214&f=10&t=156573&start=0What Experts Say About "Past Performance"
Frank Armstrong, financial author: "Rating services such as Morningstar's 'Star Awards' or the 'Forbes Honor Roll' attest to the futility of applying past performance to tomorrow."
Barra Research: "There is no persistence of equity fund performance."
Jack Bogle: "The biggest mistake investors make is looking backward at performance and thinking it’ll recur in the future."
Burns Advisory tracked the performance of Morningstar's five-star rated stock funds beginning January 1, 1999. Of the 248 stock funds, just four still kept that rank after ten years.
Wm. Bernstein, author of The Four Pillars of Investing: "For the 20 years from 1970 to 1989, the best performing stock assets were Japanese stocks, U.S. small stocks, and gold stocks. These turned out to be the worst performing assets over the next decade."
Jack Brennan, former Vanguard CEO: "Fund ranking is meaningless when based primarily on past performance, as most are."
Andrew Clarke, author: "By the time an investment reaches the top of the performance tables, there's a good chance that its run is over. The past is not prologue."
Prof. John Cochrane, author: "Past performance has almost no information about future performance."
S.T.Coleridge: "History is a lantern over the stern. It shows where you've been but not where you're going"
Jonathan Clements, author & Wall Street Journal columnist: "Trying to pick market-beating investments is a loser's game."
Eugene Fama, Nobel Laureate: "
Our research on individual mutual funds says that it's impossible to identify true winners on a reliable basis, even if one ignores the costs that active funds impose on investors."
Gensler & Bear, co-authors of The Great Mutual Fund Trap: "Of the fifty top-performing funds in 2000, not a single one appeared on the list in either 1999 or 1998."
Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund was the top U.S. equity fund in 2007. In November 2009, it ranked in the bottom 1% of its category.
Arthur Levitt, SEC Commissioner: "A mutual fund's past performance, which is the first feature that investors consider when choosing a fund, doesn't predict future performance."
Burton Malkiel, author of the classic Random Walk Down Wall Street: "I have examined the lack of persistency in fund returns over periods from the 1960s through the early 2000s.--
There is no persistency to good performance. It is as random as the market."
Mercer Investment Consulting from a study of over 12,000 institutional managers: "Excellent recent performance not only doesn't guarantee future results but generally leads to under-performance in the subsequent period."
After fifteen straight years beating the S&P
500 Index, Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust (LMNVX) is now (1/2
5/201
5) in the bottom 1% of its category for 10-year returns .
Ron Ross, author of The Unbeatable Market: "Extensive studies by Davis, Brown & Groetzman, Ibbotson, Elton et al, all confirmed there is no significant persistance in mutual fund performance."
Bill Schultheis, adviser and author of The Coffeehouse Investor: "Using past performance numbers as a method for choosing mutual funds is such a lousy idea that mutual fund companies are required by law to tell you it is a lousy idea."
Standard & Poor's: "Over the
5 years ending September 2009, only 4.27% large-cap funds, 3.98% mid-cap funds, and 9.13% small-cap funds maintained a top-half ranking over the five consecutive 12-month periods."
Larry Swedroe, author of many finance books: "The 44 Wall Street Fund was the top performing fund over the decade of the 1970s. It ranked as the single worst performing fund of the 1980's losing 73%. -- If you are going to use past performance to predict the future winners, the evidence is strong that your approach is highly likely to fail."
David Swensen, Yale's Chief Investment Officer: "Chasing performance is the biggest mistake investors make. If anything, it is a perverse indicator."
Tweddell & Pierce, co-authors of Winning With Mutual Funds: "Numerous studies have shown that
using superior past performance is no better than random selection."
Eric Tyson, author of Mutual Funds for Dummies (2010 edition): "Of the number one top-performing stock and bond funds in each of the last 20 years, a whopping 80% of them subsequently performed worse than the average fund in their peer group over the next
5 to 10 years! Some of these former #1 funds actually went on to become the worst-performing funds in their particular category."
Value Line selected Garret Van Wagoner "Mutual fund Manager of the Year" in 1999. In August 2009, Van Wagoner's Emerging Growth Fund was the worst performing U.S. stock fund over the past 10 years.
+++++++++++
along with MJG, I also hold actively managed funds. But I think one thing that needs to be talked about much more is the tax implications (the drop in performance) of all the taxable distributions that actively managed funds tend to make.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund and the Vanguard S&P
500 Index fund have not had a single capital gains distribution in more than 10 years. The only taxes you pay are on qualified dividends. This is a HUGE issue.
In the typical performance figures we see before tax returns. Would be interesting to see after tax returns, given a specified tax bracket. As we all know, you only keep the after tax returns.
