Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Buying Mutual Funds based on previous results, in general, is a good approach
Old 11-30-2017, 03:08 PM   #1
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Cary
Posts: 6
Buying Mutual Funds based on previous results, in general, is a good approach

Look at any business magazine and you will find advertisements for Mutual Funds. The main thing they advertise is how successful the fund has been in the past. They also advertise the quality of the fund company and the managers of the mutual fund.

For example, most people like Vanguard Wellesley and Wellington because they have a good track record. Their managers have been successful at buying and selling stocks and bonds within the fund historically that have given them better returns than the peer funds for years and years.

Now is it possible in the future that the Vanguard Wellesley and Wellington Mutual Funds will crash and burn significantly more than the benchmark of similar funds? Sure, it is possible. But due to historical successes year after year after year, it is unlikely. (Some superstar funds have crashed and burned but the odds are low.)

So why do so many people say it is a bad idea to purchase mutual funds based on Morningstar rates, historical success, and the reputation of the fund company and the managers of the mutual fund?
__________________

Soon to be free is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-30-2017, 03:29 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 24,770
Who says that?

OTOH, all you have to do is to look at the history of Fidelity Magellan to see a great example of why past performance is not indicative of future results.

IMO, you need to look at past performance, the fund's objectives and philosophy, management, managerial stability, etc.. which is why indexing is easier... I'll get whatever the market/index does.
__________________

__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...target 65/35/0 AA
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 03:34 PM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 46,012
I smell a troll.

Soon to be free, do these user names ring a bell?

- Glad to be Retired
- Early SS
- Forced to Retire
- Waiting for Pension
- Retired and Restless
__________________
Numbers is hard

Charter resident of the lumpen slums of cyberspace

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 03:37 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Onward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soon to be free View Post
So why do so many people say it is a bad idea to purchase mutual funds based on Morningstar rates, historical success, and the reputation of the fund company and the managers of the mutual fund?
Soon to be free, is your real name Bill Miller?
__________________
And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.
Onward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 03:39 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 24,770
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...target 65/35/0 AA
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 04:43 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soon to be free View Post
... So why do so many people say it is a bad idea to purchase mutual funds based on Morningstar rates, historical success, and the reputation of the fund company and the managers of the mutual fund?
Troll or not, I'll answer: Because all the statistical data say that this is a complete waste of time.

S&P publishes a "Manager Persistence Report Card" every six months. This statistical study consistently shows that being a top manager in one period is not predictive. https://us.spindices.com/documents/s...-june-2017.pdf

The WSJ published an article a few weeks ago after studying 1,500 Morningstar 5-star funds and the conclusion was that a 5-star rating is not predictive. "The Morningstar mirage: What those fund ratings really mean" 10/26/17 Unfortunately it is behind their paywall, but many summaries like this one are available in the wild: Morningstar Star Ratings, Still Less Useful Than Expense Ratios — My Money Blog

Gurus Fama and French attempted to find a way to predict manager performance and failed. French discusses their paper here: https://famafrench.dimensional.com/v...-managers.aspx The paper itself is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Deliver...356021&mirid=1

There is only one predictor that I know of: fees. Low fees are correlated with higher performance, but this is a uselessly blunt tool for selecting a manager. Fund Fees Predict Future Success or Failure

Bottom Line: Active managers' performance is basically due to luck and trying to select a manager who will be lucky in the future is futile.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 05:33 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,320
no comment, being trolled again.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 06:24 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,350
It was enough to convince me. I sold all my index funds and bought all five star Morningstar funds. What could possibly go wrong. And, Morningstar will refund my money if it does not work out. Right?
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2017, 06:29 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
MRG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 8,582
I'm long SEQUX for thirty five years. What could possibly go wrong? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
MRG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 10:36 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRG View Post
I'm long SEQUX for thirty five years. What could possibly go wrong? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Actually, that's quite a good example. Schwab's data only goes back ten years, but the SEQUX 10-year return is 6.36% and the S&P 10-year return is 7.51%. So SEQUX's shortfall of 1.15% is only a bit more than its current 1.07% fee. This is quite good for a stock-picking fund and almost exactly what William Sharpe predicted in his 1991 paper "The Arithmetic of Active Management." (https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/a...ive/active.htm) Probably this is due to their relatively low portfolio turnover of only 16% per Morningstar. It's a little hard to eyeball its year-to-year variation but it looks to be smoother than most stock-pickers' performance. So ... if one wants to hire a stock-picker, there are a lot of worse choices than SEQUX.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 02:21 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
actually it can be true . the only problem is like whjat happened with magellan, is that when something like the manager changes it may n longer be the same fund .

which is why 90% of my investing has always been dynamic .

when things change the fund is swapped .

a study by morningstar showed that it is not the fact that managers can't beat the markets . it is that many funds with goods stock pickets funds are small and while the stock picking is good the expense of running a small fund makes it hard to get keep the alpha .

however morningstar found if you take the 25% lowest cost funds , which generally are the biggest funds with most investor money , they tended to beat their index's over time more often than not .

but when managers change they are not the same fund anymore .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 10:25 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 9,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soon to be free View Post

Now is it possible in the future that the Vanguard Wellesley and Wellington Mutual Funds will crash and burn significantly more than the benchmark of similar funds? Sure, it is possible. But due to historical successes year after year after year, it is unlikely. (Some superstar funds have crashed and burned but the odds are low.)

So why do so many people say it is a bad idea to purchase mutual funds based on Morningstar rates, historical success, and the reputation of the fund company and the managers of the mutual fund?
IMHO, the idea that past history is more important than low fees is false. If Wellesly and Wellington continue to do well compared to other similar funds it is because their fees are low, and not because their past history looks good. My 2.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 10:42 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
... a study by morningstar showed that it is not the fact that managers can't beat the markets . it is that many funds with goods stock pickets funds are small and while the stock picking is good the expense of running a small fund makes it hard to get keep the alpha .

however morningstar found if you take the 25% lowest cost funds , which generally are the biggest funds with most investor money , they tended to beat their index's over time more often than not ...
If you're referring to this study: Fund Fees Predict Future Success or Failure I don't think it says anything at all about funds beating indexes or benchmarks.* The author defines "success ratio" as " ... the success ratio asks, 'What percentage of funds survived and outperformed their category group?' " IOW, "success ratio" compares a fund only to other funds.

With Morningstar, I have found that they have a strong tendency to compare fund performance with other funds' performance. In a way, this is like selecting the tallest midget.

I think that their result makes sense, though. After all, the lowest cost funds are going to be the passive funds, aka "index funds," and they do consistently beat their fund peers. No news there, really. But, importantly, they still underperform their benchmarks slightly due to fees, however small.

If you can point me to data that says that the lowest cost funds "tended to beat their index's over time more often than not" I would be very interested to see it.

-----------------------
*A text search of the web page and the PDF version of the article shows that neither the word "index" nor the word "benchmark" appear.
__________________

OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
401K institutional funds vs. retail mutual funds FIRE_hopeful FIRE and Money 15 06-28-2017 07:27 PM
Inconsistent Results in Firecalc 3.0 - Different Results/Exactly same data cvc8445 FIRECalc support 5 05-24-2009 04:42 PM
State Street Global Advisors -- Any good Index Mutual Funds? bank5 Stock Picking and Market Strategy 4 03-19-2009 12:04 PM
Spreadsheet results not agreeing with results page Lsbcal FIRECalc support 1 02-03-2008 11:08 AM
Re: Asset based or dividend based Bob_Smith FIRE and Money 21 01-05-2004 01:50 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:18 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×