Search Results for: ooma

It is very tempting to invest in an actively-managed mutual fund that advertises above-average historical returns. Why would you bother investing in the ones with below-average returns? However, there’s something behind the whole “past performance does not guarantee future results” fine print. While there will always be funds that outperform looking backwards, that fact just doesn’t reveal very much about the future.

Index provider Standard & Poor’s publishes something called the S&P Persistence Scorecard twice a year, which examines the persistence of mutual fund performance over consecutive and overlapping time periods. By using quartiles, relative performance is compared, not absolute performance. Do the funds that had top returns in the past continue to have top returns?

The most recent December 2013 study [pdf] reaffirms the general conclusions of many other similar studies on persistence of actively-managed mutual fund performance, namely that it is often nowhere to be found when compared with random chance.

Very few funds can consistently stay at the top. Our studies show that as time horizons widen,the performance persistence of top quartile managers declines. Of the 692 funds that were in the top quartile as of September 2011, only 7.23% managed to stay in the top quartile at the end of September 2013. Similarly, 5.28% of the large-cap funds, 10.31% of the mid-cap funds and 8.15% of the small-cap funds remain in the top quartile.

For the three years ended September 2013, 19.25% of large-cap funds, 20.1% of mid-cap funds and 26.8% of small-cap funds maintained a top-half ranking over three consecutive 12-month periods. It should be noted that random expectations would suggest a rate of 25% and small-cap funds was the only category to exceed the repeat rate.

A good analogy I’ve read is that you don’t drive by only looking at your rearview mirror.

More: Barron’s, Rick Ferri/Forbes

It is very tempting to invest in an actively-managed mutual fund that has above-average returns. Why would you invest in the ones with below-average returns? However, there’s something behind the whole “past performance does not guarantee future results” fine print. While there will always be funds that outperform, it is exceedingly difficult to pick them out in advance.
[Read more…]

I was looking through the Barnes & Noble bargain bin and found a book called “How to do just about everything”. Okay, how to unplug a toilet… how to carve a turkey… hey, a personal finance section! Wow, quite awful. After coming home and looking up the book, I found out it was by eHow.com. I should have known. Check out this gem on How to Select a Good Mutual Fund (eHow link), which offers the following advice:

2. Determine how many mutual funds you will invest in. Three to five funds is generally considered an adequate amount of diversification.

Yes, let’s determine diversification by the actual number of funds. One… two… three… done! Never mind that I could easily have more diversification in one mutual fund than in 15 separate niche funds. This is like deciding the best book is the one with the most pages. At least later on it says to vary the size of companies in the funds. However, there is no mention of real diversification between stocks vs. bonds, domestic vs. international, passive vs. active management, etc. What else?

5. Choose high-performance funds by using Internet resources and newspapers to pick those funds that have had the best performance over at least the last three years.

Huh? I don’t know how the advice could get much worse than this. Picking whichever funds that had the best performance over the last three years will virtually guarantee that you will have below average returns going forward. Check out these articles on the persistence of mutual fund returns based on studies of actual mutual fund return data over decades. “The majority of well-done studies tend to support a lack of persistence for all but the worst performing equity mutual funds.”

Don’t chase performance! Again, we see no mention of better indicators like expense ratio, turnover ratio, tax-efficiency, manager ownership of shares, etc.

Content Mills Warning
So how does such a poor article get prominent placement in search engines, not to mention published in a book? eHow is a content mill that encourages people to churn out large numbers of articles with low quality standards, promising them a cut of all future ad revenue. Google has recently penalized them for their low-quality articles as well.

In addition, eHow has a history of treating their freelance writers poorly, and their most recent move was to cut off their share of ad revenue completely, offering them either a lowball buyout or nothing. I’m sure they have some good articles, but in general I would say you’re better off avoiding them, especially for money-related topics.