The Index Funds Win Again

Strategies
The Index Funds Win Again

By MARK HULBERT
Published: February 21, 2009
THERE’S yet more evidence that it makes sense to invest in simple, plain-vanilla index funds, whose low fees often lead to better net returns than hedge funds and actively managed mutual funds with more impressive performance numbers.

Basic stock market index funds generally aspire to nothing more than matching the returns of a market benchmark. So in a miserable year for stocks, index funds may not look very appealing. But it turns out that, after fees and taxes, it is the extremely rare actively managed fund or hedge fund that does better than a simple index fund.
That, at least, is the finding of a new study by Mark Kritzman, president and chief executive of Windham Capital Management of Boston. He presented his results in the Feb. 1 issue of Economics & Portfolio Strategy, a newsletter for institutional investors published by Peter L. Bernstein Inc.
Mr. Kritzman, who also teaches a graduate course in financial engineering at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, set up his study to accurately measure the long-term impact of all the expenses involved in investing in a mutual fund or hedge fund. Those include transaction costs, taxes and management and performance fees.
He is not the first to try such a measurement. But, he said in an e-mail message, it is surprisingly hard to measure these costs accurately. The bite taken out by taxes, for example, depends on the specific combination of positive years and losing ones, as well as the order in which they occur. That combination and order also affect the performance fees charged by hedge funds.
Mr. Kritzman devised an elaborate method to take such contingencies into account. Then he calculated the average return over a hypothetical 20-year period, net of all expenses, of three hypothetical investments: a stock index fund with an annualized return of 10 percent, an actively managed mutual fund with an annualized return of 13.5 percent and a hedge fund with an annualized return of 19 percent. The volatility of the three funds’ returns — along with their turnover rates, transaction fees and management and performance fees — was based on what he determined to be industry averages.
Mr. Kritzman found that, net of all expenses, including federal and state taxes for a New York State resident in the highest tax brackets, the winner was the index fund.
Specifically, he assumed that long-term capital gains were subject to a 15 percent federal tax and a 6.85 percent state tax; short-term capital gains and dividends were taxed at a combined federal and state rate of nearly 42 percent. The index fund’s average after-expense return was 8.5 percent a year, versus 8 percent for the actively managed fund and 7.7 percent for the hedge fund.
Expenses were the culprit. For both the actively managed fund and the hedge fund, those expenses more than ate up the large amounts — 3.5 and 9 percentage points a year, respectively — by which they beat the index fund before expenses.
IF such outperformance isn’t enough to overcome the drag of expenses, what would do the trick? Mr. Kritzman calculates that just to break even with the index fund, net of all expenses, the actively managed fund would have to outperform it by an average of 4.3 percentage points a year on a pre-expense basis. For the hedge fund, that margin would have to be 10 points a year.
The chances of finding such funds are next to zero, said Russell Wermers, a finance professor at the University of Maryland. Consider the 452 domestic equity mutual funds in the Morningstar database that existed for the 20 years through January of this year. Morningstar reports that just 13 of those funds beat the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index by at least four percentage points a year, on average, over that period. That’s less than 3 out of every 100 funds.
But even that sobering statistic paints too rosy a picture, the professor said. That’s because it’s one thing to learn, after the fact, that a fund has done that well, and quite another to identify it in advance. Indeed, he said, he has found from his research that only a minority of funds that beat the market in a given year can outperform it the next year as well.
Professor Wermers said he believed that it was “exceedingly probable that any fund that has beaten the market by an average of more than one percentage point per year over the last decade achieved that return almost entirely due to luck alone.”
“By definition, therefore, such a fund could not have been identified in advance,” he added.
The investment implication is clear, according to Mr. Kritzman. “It is very hard, if not impossible,” he wrote in his study, “to justify active management for most individual, taxable investors, if their goal is to grow wealth.” And he said that those who still insist on an actively managed fund are almost certainly “deluding themselves.”
What if you’re investing in a tax-sheltered account, like a 401(k) or an I.R.A.? In that case, Mr. Kritzman conceded, the odds are relatively more favorable for active management, because, in his simulations, taxes accounted for about two-thirds of the expenses of the actively managed mutual fund and nearly half of the hedge fund’s. But he emphasized the word “relatively.”
“Even in a tax-sheltered account,” he said, “the odds of beating the index fund are still quite poor.”
Mark Hulbert is editor of The Hulbert Financial Digest, a service of MarketWatch. E-mail: strategy@nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/22stra.html?em

Under 50? Do This, or You'll Regret It!

Under 50? Do This, or You'll Regret It!
By John Rosevear December 8, 2008 Comments (1)

I know, I know -- the stock market is crazy and unpredictable right now.

I know that sitting in cash or doing nothing until things settle down seems like a sensible course of action.

But I also know this: 10 or 15 years from now, the market will be up. Way up from here, in all likelihood.

If you're under 50, and you're trying to figure out what to do with the wreckage of your retirement portfolio, there's only one good answer: Buy great stocks.

Here's why.

When the game is rigged, bet with the house No, the stock market isn't "rigged" in the sense of being manipulated. It is, however, inherent in the market's nature to go up over the long term, scary bear markets notwithstanding.

Check out these 15-year returns, which assume purchase on Dec. 8, 1993 and include reinvested dividends for those stocks that have them:

Stock-----15-Year Gain

McDonald's (NYSE: MCD)
430%

Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL)
1,110%

Southern Company (NYSE: SO)
804%

Nokia (NYSE: NOK)
541%*

Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM)
1,945%

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ)
573%

Target (NYSE: TGT)
612%

Source: Yahoo! Finance.
Figures as of market close on Dec. 5, 2008. *Nokia return since Apr. 25, 1995.

Those returns are despite the dot-com bubble bursting and despite the recent market crisis. As Richard Ferri, an investment manager and author of several books on asset allocation and indexed investing, argues in this month's issue of Rule Your Retirement, there are strong reasons to believe that the market is naturally prone to going up over time -- and that average annual returns near 10% over the next 15 years are extremely likely.

His methodology and reasoning are a little too elaborate to lay out here -- check out the complete article for specifics -- but his recommendations for those under 50 are crystal-clear:

• Your portfolio should be 100% in stocks.
  
• Continue to add to your retirement accounts, and use that money to buy stocks.
  
• Be aggressive -- as aggressive as you can stand.
  
• Ignore performance. Don't look at your statements.
  

That last one might seem weird -- how will you know how you're doing if you don't look at your statements? -- but Ferri has a point. He argues that they're "completely irrelevant" -- following short-term price movements just doesn't give you any useful information. In fact, it's more likely to give you something to worry about, needlessly.

I'd add this caveat: This only works if you have very long-term investments! Not all portfolios are built to run 15 years or longer with no more maintenance than the occasional trade or rebalance -- in fact, most aren't.

How do you do that?

Construct a long-haul portfolio

Ferri is a proponent of indexing -- of using index funds and ETFs in your retirement portfolio. That’s one way to build a long-term investment strategy. Another way, one likely to yield far greater returns if done right, is to buy great stocks -- the blue-chip dividend monsters and future giants that will keep delivering rewards year after year. (Can you guess which method I favor?)

Of course, "buy stocks" isn't a complete to-do list. To maximize your gains over the long haul, you need a solid asset-allocation plan -- one that gives you exposure to all the key corners of the stock market. Your 401(k) provider can probably help you come up with a decent one -- though as a rule, those computer-generated templates tend to be more conservative than is appropriate for most young investors.

A far better set of asset allocation roadmaps for retirement investors -- one of the best I've seen, and one that works well whether you're using mutual funds in a 401(k) or stocks in an IRA, or a combination of the two -- are the ones maintained by the team at Rule Your Retirement. They're available to members by clicking on "Model Portfolios" under the Resources tab after you log in.

What do the unfolding financial crisis and ongoing market volatility mean for your money? The Fool's here with answers. Fool contributor John Rosevear owns share of Apple. Southern Company and Johnson & Johnson are Motley Fool Income Investor selections. Nokia is a Motley Fool Inside Value pick. Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendation.

http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/retirement/2008/12/08/under-50-do-this-or-youll-regret-it.aspx