Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

How much risk are you taking when picking an active manager?

For a chance at outperformance, you have to accept the possibility of underperformance.

Anyone looking to invest in a South African general equity unit trust currently has 300 funds to choose from. That is a quite remarkable number if you consider that there are 371 listed companies on the JSE, of which only 164 are large enough and liquid enough to be part of the FTSE/JSE All Share Index.

This profusion of unit trusts makes the choice for investors particularly difficult. How do they sift through such a large universe to identify the most suitable funds for their needs?

It seems the answer is that they don’t. The concentration in the market suggests that few investors and advisors look beyond the largest funds in the category, since these are well-recognised and established names.

According to the latest figures from the Association for Savings and Investment South Africa (Asisa), the five largest South African general equity unit trusts hold 29.2% of all the assets in this category. The largest 15 account for 52.2%.

In other words, just 5% of the funds hold more than half of the assets.

How safe are the big names?

Of course big funds are big for a reason. They tend to have attracted investments over time on the back of strong long-term track records. This is why many investors and financial advisors see them as ‘safe’ options. Their reputations have been earned.

However, it is worth considering that of the five largest funds in the South African general equity category with 10-year track records to the end of March this year, only one has outperformed the longest-running FTSE/JSE All Share Index tracker.

Source: Profile Media, FE Analytics

Importantly, this is a like-for-like comparison. It is not comparing these funds against an index, which would ignore fees, but against a fund that tracks the index. This means fees have been taken into account.

This is not about trying to reignite the debate around whether passive or active deliver better long-term returns. Rather, it is to raise a question about risk.

Active manager risk

It is quite obvious from the above chart that anyone who invested in the two worst-performing funds actually took on substantial risk. Despite these funds being large, and therefore perceived as safe, they materially underperformed the index tracker.

Unfortunately this active manager risk is something many investors overlook. It is of course possible for active managers to outperform, as illustrated by the track record of the Coronation Top 20 Fund. However, in order for that potential gain to be possible, investors have to accept the risk that their chosen fund may also underperform, and that such underperformance can be substantial.

This is the case regardless of the size and reputation of the fund in question. The risk may well be lower with a large, established fund, but it still exists.

In search of persistence

What complicates this further is how difficult it is for investors to identify which funds will outperform in the future. Particularly if they are relying on recent past performance.

The most recent S&P Persistence Scorecard, published last year, demonstrates how difficult it is for any manager to outperform repeatedly. The table below shows what percentage of US equity funds stay in the top quartile (best 20%) over four consecutive 12-month periods.

Performance persistence of all US domestic equity funds
Fund count at March 2014 Percentage remaining in top quartile
March 2015 March 2016 March 2017 March 2018
571 30.47% 7.88% 0.18% 0.18%

Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, CRSP. Data as at March 31, 2018

It is worth noting that 0.18% of 571 is one – meaning that a single fund in this entire group managed to remain in the top 20% of performers year after year.

This is US data, but a similar pattern can be found in South Africa. The chart below shows how many local equity funds consistently outperformed the index over consecutive rolling three-year periods up to the end of March this year.

Source: Profile Data

What this shows is that the risk when selecting an active manager is clearly skewed.

The chance of picking one that underperforms is far higher than picking one that consistently outperforms.

This is why the argument that index funds should form a core part of any investment portfolio has gained such traction. Ensuring the market return with part of your portfolio allows you to more comfortably take a risk using active management with the rest.

“Active fund managers have an important role to play in the management of a portfolio,” says Casparus Treurnicht, portfolio manager and research analyst at Gryphon Asset Management. “But the advantages of using indexation as a core component of your total investment strategy is irrefutable.

“The question is no longer whether indexation should be included in an investor’s portfolio, but rather what allocation it should enjoy.”

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   11

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

So if only 1.11% of actively managed funds out performs the index over a rolling 3 year period, could someone do some research and check how many out perform the index over a 5 or 10 year term? That said, why take on the risk with even a portion of your portfolio’s money? By my calculations you can get better odds than 1.11% at the casino (Blackjack 40% + if your good). Maybe it is early on a Monday and I am missing something completely, but would like someone to enlighten me as to why take anyone would take on the additional risk?

So. Only 1.11% of the original list of out-performers (to date 31 Mar 2016) still outperformed after three years (to date 31 Mar 2019)…clearly any reason to invest in an active fund. You are almost certain to get inconsistent results and suffer emotional setbacks in generating performance.

Nonetheless, 20 funds outperformed the All Share Index from 31 Mar 2009 to 31 Mar 2014 out of a total of 65 (30.7%). Five years later…31 Mar 2019…only 3 funds still outperformed over a 5 year horizon. That is 4.6%…not anything I would call statistically different in any way.

I tried to look at the ten year history from 31 Mar 1999 to 31 Mar 2009 and extrapolate that to 31 Mar 2019…but there’s only 12 funds that still exist AND have a performance history for that period. Not enough to make a meaningful conclusion but it does point to the fact that MOST funds closed down/merged/reset due to poor track records!

Such a powerful case for indexation! If the performance element doesn’t convince you, the persistency element should!!

You only have to look at the Allan Gray Balanced fund’s latest annualised returns over the last ten years where you will not only pay standard asset managers fees but performance fees as well and compare those returns with the All Share returns to realise that there has been little or no reward for choosing this active manager.

So. Only 1.11% of the original list of out-performers (to date 31 Mar 2016) still outperformed after three years (to date 31 Mar 2019)…clearly any reason to invest in an active fund. You are almost certain to get inconsistent results and suffer emotional setbacks in generating performance.

Nonetheless, 20 funds outperformed the All Share Index from 31 Mar 2009 to 31 Mar 2014 out of a total of 65 (30.7%). Five years later…31 Mar 2019…only 3 funds still outperformed over a 5 year horizon. That is 4.6%…not anything I would call statistically different in any way.

I tried to look at the ten year history from 31 Mar 1999 to 31 Mar 2009 and extrapolate that to 31 Mar 2019…but there’s only 12 funds that still exist AND have a performance history for that period. Not enough to make a meaningful conclusion but it does point to the fact that MOST funds closed down/merged/reset due to poor track records!

caaswors7,
Thank you for the info.

This is not a good Monday for active fund managers or for the few here who are pro active fund management, as here is more evidence that yet again the man in the street should buy an index and steer clear of actively managed funds.

Why would anyone take on the additional risk and the costs?

The real question is : How much risk are you taking if you decide to invest in the JSE all share – be it either active or passive

Even if you have an active manager you are still taking 100% risk no matter the performance of the fund.!
Why would you give the responsibility of decision making to someone else when you are taking the risk?
Bottom line – if you’re taking the risk, have the balls to make your own decisions.
In my opinion.

“Bottom line – if you’re taking the risk, have the balls to make your own decisions. In my opinion.”

@Mactheknife – I can’t agree with you more! Cause you end up paying a fund manager for what? Making decisions you might not even agree with? Makes no sense if you ask me.

A quote from an article in Just One Lap a week ago………The latest available SPIVA report from mid 2018 (check it out here) shows that over a 5 year period, 96.55% of South African Global Equity managers performed worse than the benchmark. In other words only 3.45% of South African Global Unit Trusts were able to do better than the benchmark. Yuck!

Just more evidence to avoid Financial Advisors, Brokers/Active portfolio management and go for an index.

I declare I own Sygnia Itrix MSCI World, maybe I should have done more research and purchased SATRIX MSCI World….lol

read it here …………. https://justonelap.com/etf-comparing-world-etfs/?utm_source=Just+One+Lap+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8acb7b0906-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_12_18_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c2955bf0d-8acb7b0906-48752265

For a chance at outperformance, you have to accept the possibility of underperformance.

And the award for stating the bloody obvious goes to…

Load All 11 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

SHOP NEWSLETTERS TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company:
server: 172.17.0.2