Originally Posted by Running_Man
5% Scudder Latin America Fund (15.54)
12.5% Tweedy Browne Global Value Fund (9.96)
12.5 % Acorn International Fund (14.95)
So that the performance to beat the 10 year government bond (which offered a 5.54 percent yield in January 1998 by a passive investment guru was mostly due to a managed portfolio gains.
Is it at least possible
that the high returns of these funds is because the sectors they are invested in did very well, and has nothing to do with active vs index?
Here are some surrogates that are indexes. They aren't a perfect match, but they are fair comparisons:
Tweedy Brown Global value Fund (9.96 % gain) --> Vanguard Intl Value Fund (8.96% over the last 10 years)
Scudder Latin Am (15.54%) --> MSCI EM Lat Am ID Index (as of 31 Jan 08)= 14.83%m (index performance, so no fees)
Acorn Int ->> ??
So, where I could find indexes/index funds, they were within a point of the return of the managed funds. At least at first glance, they performed relatively well compared to the other holdings in Bernstein's sample portfolio primarily
because of the sectors in which these funds were invested, not due to superb stock picking, etc.