Showing posts with label wall street fund managers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall street fund managers. Show all posts

Tuesday 2 November 2010

My day as a fund manager wannabe



What do the people you entrust your savings do all day? Our reporter joins the First State team in Edinburgh to find out what they get up to.

Personal finance reporter Emma Wall
Personal finance reporter Emma Wall
In the grand surroundings of St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, lies First State Investments. Famed for its long and successful track record in emerging markets equities and star managers such as Angus Tulloch and Martin Lau, you could forgive the preconception that behind the big glass door would be deluxe leather chairs, corner offices and traders barking orders into phones. I spent a day there to experience a fund manager's life at first hand.

8AM

At a time when most people are just leaving for work, a dozen members of First State's global emerging markets (GEM) and Asia Pacific investment teams are gathering round a table, preparing for a cross-continent meeting.
We are crowded into what resembles a sixth-form common room, with photos of employees' weddings and nights out pinned to a board on the wall. At the foot of the table is a large television screen, where we are to expect images of similar scenes to appear, beamed from First State's Singapore and Hong Kong offices.
This is one of three meetings a week in which managers, directors and analysts meet to discuss companies in the region that may qualify for one or more of the GEM and Asia Pacific funds.
"If you took minutes of these meetings, you'd realise that we never draw any conclusions," said one of the team. "We often disagree about a company and one of us may choose to hold it in their fund while the other managers think it's a bad idea. There is not a house view."
After a few technical difficulties – "it was decided a while ago that Asia would call us, rather than us calling them, as we can't master the technology" – the meeting is up and running, chaired by Singapore-based Alistair Thompson, deputy head of Asia Pacific excluding Japan equities.
Themes discussed include infrastructure, currencies, interest rates and inflation – in Britain, Australia and Asia – as well as the hot topic of the moment, gold, and whether its price could double.
The group also reviews the big buyers and sellers of stocks – trades over $1m – that the funds hold and what this could mean for the funds' performance.
Banter is rife. Team members seem to revel in antagonising one another or demanding reasons for their stock positions, and there is little indication of hierarchy.
The First State approach to investing is to be accountable to investors rather than a benchmark. Managing partner Stuart Paul said investors knew their approach was as much about capital preservation as making returns. "You can outperform a benchmark but still lose money," he said. "That's not something we're interested in. Sometimes we might not make as much as an upmarket, but in 2000 when the MSCI emerging markets index lost 25pc, we only lost 9.5pc."

10AM

"We think it's in the interest of the client not to be too clever," said Mr Tulloch, explaining the absolute return style of investing his team champions.
Institutional investors make up just over half of First State's global emerging markets and Asia Pac Oeic (open-ended investment company) business. The team is required to keep in regular contact with its large clients, and so next on the agenda is a call to a European public pension scheme.
Mr Tulloch described how investors' location governed their interests, with Britain having a bias towards Asia Pacific and old Commonwealth allies, US investors preferring global emerging markets and in particular South America, and the Baltic region interested in Russia. This particular client has been invested since 2004 and is updated every quarter on the fund's performance, outlook and portfolio changes.
Staff changes within First State are explained, as are big buys and sells and any mistakes managers may have made. The client questions the impact of Chinese inflation on the fund and interest rates as well as property market speculation. Technological developments in 3G mobiles, the Thai elections and food prices are also on the agenda.
While this meeting is going on, other team members make research calls to Asia – these have to be in the morning because of the time difference. The team travels to meet remote companies, and is out of the country for about eight weeks a year. On top of this, members spend two months a year in either the Hong Kong or Singapore offices.
The house prefers not to have single-country funds, hence the Greater China fund is also invested in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Alan Nesbit, deputy head of global emerging markets, said they preferred not to match the index weightings, as that made you focus on the past. "If you follow the index, you are constantly looking in the rear view mirror," he said. "The biggest emerging market changes – not that long ago it was Mexico."

12.30PM

Over a team lunch – a rare treat, I am told – we discuss the First State philosophy further. Millar Mathieson, senior analyst and portfolio manager, explained how even though Mr Tulloch was the boss, they felt just as comfortable questioning his investment decisions as those of the junior members of the team.
"There is no hierarchy like that – as you saw this morning," one said. "One of us can disagree with another, and just because Angus or Stuart believe something doesn't mean we have to toe their line."

2.30PM

In the afternoon there is an office visit from a Malaysian manufacturer with links to the medical industry, who is pitching for First State to invest. The manufacturer brought material samples along so that the team could touch and feel them; they have fun passing the products around. The company is assessed not just on profits and financial performance but also on the company's culture and ethics – whether they source raw materials sustainably and the ecological impact of production and waste disposal.

4PM

Most of the team's time is spent researching companies and prospective investments. Even if a company is not suitable for investment now, it is monitored for potential in the future.
Jonathan Asante, the head of global emerging markets, said that when the team met companies they were often told they asked different questions from other investment houses. He said: "We are concerned about the companies' culture; whether they are trustworthy, honest and good to their shareholders. We don't want to see a spreadsheet and a business model, anyone can mock those up."
The biggest companies in emerging markets are often state owned, so First State spends some time educating companies about the value of small shareholders.
Since 2004 First State has been limiting new investment into the Asia Pacific fund and has actively discouraged new investors from the Latin America fund.
The team is finding that prices are high at the moment and the best companies come at a premium. "We have written to clients saying it is difficult at the moment – don't invest any more. Sit tight," Mr Asante said. "You can always find rubbish that's cheap, but we're not interested in rubbish."

4.30PM

I head for the exit, while Mr Tulloch and his colleagues continue to chew over the endless facts, figures and research notes that pass their desks. They tell me they rarely leave before 7pm.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8097596/My-day-as-a-fund-manager-wannabe.html

Tuesday 12 October 2010

The Top 5 Ways to Lose Money Investing

The Top 5 Ways to Lose Money Investing

By Dan Dzombak
October 11, 2010


It is heart-wrenching when you hear stories of investors losing their life savings for avoidable reasons. A recent story in Bloomberg BusinessWeek about Leona Miller, an 84-year-old retired beautician who invested in derivatives, got me thinking of ways people lose money in stocks and how to avoid them.

1. Investing in a product or business you don't understand
Leona Miller bought a structured note called a "reverse convertible note with a knock-in put option tied to Merck stock." Even I was unsure what this meant, and this is one of the more basic structured notes.

Leona collected a 9% coupon and the right to receive her initial capital back at maturity. However, if at any time Merck fell below a certain level (called the "knock-in" level), instead of giving Leona her money back, the bank could give her a predetermined number of shares of Merck. As long as Merck's stock didn't fall, Leona collected her 9%.

If Merck did fall, she would lose huge amounts of money. As you might expect, Merck's price fell below the "knock-in" price, and Leona was left holding stock worth 30% less than her initial investment. I am hard-pressed to believe any amateur investor could fully understand exactly what a "reverse convertible note with a knock-in put option" is. By investing in products you don't understand, you are setting yourself up for disaster.

Peter Lynch has said to invest in businesses and products you understand. Leona's broker wrote that she was familiar with Merck as they manufactured one of her medications. Baloney!

Many people own mortgages and are having trouble paying them off, but that doesn't mean they should go out and invest in Annaly Capital Management (NYSE: NLY) or Chimera Investments (NYSE: CIM), which are real-estate investment trusts (REITs) that specialize in buying up mortgage-backed securities and assessing the risk inherent in residential real estate.

If you don't have an understanding of how a business truly works, don't invest in it! There are many simple businesses out there that anyone can understand.

Two examples: Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) has warehouses with DVDs and mail them to people that pay a monthly fee. Waste Management (NYSE: WM) collects trash and recycling. It's that simple.

2. Speculating
If the price of a stock you own drops by 50% tomorrow, do you like the stock more? If not, you are speculating. For example, if Philip Morris (NYSE: PM) drops by half tomorrow, Godsend! It's a financially sound business, recurring revenues, and a strong brand. I would love to be able to buy shares at $25 compared to the $50 per share you can get them for today.

3. Ignoring incentives
If you give someone incentives they will game them, meaning: Do what is in their best interest.

Regular investors, you would never ask a used car salesman if you need another car, or a life insurance salesman if you need more life insurance, so why would you ask a stock broker for advice on stocks? They don't have a professional obligation to put your interests before theirs, what's known as a fiduciary responsibility. If you are looking for advice, seek out a reputable financial advisor and double check they aren't merely brokers under a different name. Make sure they put your interests first and aren't being paid extra based on what funds and products you choose.

Stock pickers, if management is paid and incentivized based on revenue goals or share price goals, management will game them. Be wary of investing in companies with perverse management incentives, and recognize how management will likely game their incentives. Invest in companies in which management owns a considerable stake and how your interests and managements interests are aligned. The best example is Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B), whose management of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger own a combined 24% of the company's stock.

4. Ignoring valuation
Buying outrageously priced companies is setting yourself up for disaster. Investors' memories are very short; does anyone remember the tech stock crash? Baidu (Nasdaq: BIDU) is trading at 100 times earnings. If you want to earn 10% on your money annually, the company must grow its earnings 30% a year for 10 years! One misstep and Baidu will be crushed. Buying a stock hoping to sell it to the next sucker that comes along is a fool's game; buy undervalued companies.

5. Putting all your eggs in one basket
When I meet people who have 50% or more of their portfolio in their company's stock I shudder. While they may "know" their company will do well, if something goes wrong they can be walloped by losing their jobs at the same time their portfolios take a dive. Anyone who worked at Lehman, Enron, etc., can attest to this.

This list could be much longer, but five is good enough for now (No. 6 would be paying high fees). As Warren Buffett once said, "An investor needs to do very little right as long as he or she avoids big mistakes." Avoid these mistakes and prosper.



http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/10/11/the-top-5-ways-to-lose-money-investing.aspx

Warren Buffett fund illustrates 'rip off' management charges

Warren Buffett fund illustrates 'rip off' management charges


By Ian Cowie Your Money
Last updated: September 29th, 2010

If you think the row about fund management charges is a tedious technicality then prepare for a rude awakening. Terry Smith is the latest outspoken multi-millionaire to lob a hand grenade into this debate which will shake the City to its foundations and could bring several institutions crashing down.

He claims investors are left with less than a tenth of the total returns some fund managers receive – and uses Warren Buffett’s famous Berkshire Hathaway fund to illustrate the impact charges can have on long-term returns. Mr Smith says he is “not so much shocked as flabbergasted by the number of people who do not realise the impact of these performance fee structures”.

Taking typical hedge fund fees as an example – but widening his attack to performance fees charged by rising numbers of unit trusts and open-ended investment companies (OEICs) – Mr Smith said: “”As you are aware, Warren Buffett has produced a stellar investment performance over the past 45 years, compounding returns at 20.46 per cent per annum. If you had invested $1,000 in the shares of Berkshire Hathaway when Buffett began running it in 1965, by the end of 2009 your investment would have been worth $4.8m.

“However, if instead of running Berkshire Hathaway as a company in which he co-invests with you, Buffett had set it up as a hedge fund and charged 2 per cent of the value of the funds as an annual fee plus 20 per cent of any gains, of that $4.8m, $4.4m would belong to him as manager and only $400,000 would belong to you, the investor. And this is the result you would get if your hedge fund manager had equalled Warren Buffett’s performance. Believe me, he or she won’t.

“Two and twenty does not work. That does not mean that 1.5 per cent and 15 per cent is OK, or even 1 per cent and 10 per cent. Performance fees do not work. They extract too much of the return and encourage risky behaviour.”

Mr Smith, who was rated the best banking analyst in Britain for five consecutive years in the 1980s before going on to become chief executive of brokers Collins Stewart since 1996 is the latest City gamekeeper to turn poacher by blowing the whistle on established practice in the Square Mile. Like Alan Miller, a former senior fund manager at New Star, Mr Smith plans to launch his own fund management company, offering lower costs and higher returns to investors.

Whether either or both can pull off that double remains to be seen. But, here and now, there is growing resentment among investors about high charges and low returns. Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph revealed how fund managers pocket more than £7bn a year from charges despite a decade of falling share prices. Mr Miller, a founder of Spencer Churchill Miller Private said: “The time is right for exposure of various elements of the industry.

“It is riddled with blatant self-interest and conflicts of interest that would never be tolerated elsewhere. Investors have become victims as the charges they have to pay have risen and risen while the returns they get have been consistently below par and the actual cost of managing their money has continued to fall.”

Data from Morningstar, a research company, shows the average investment fund has an annual charge of 1.25 per cent. But lesser known administrative fees amount to 0.45 per cent. And trading costs total another 1.35 per cent, according to the Financial Services Authority and Financial Express. When this 1.8 per cent is deducted from the total £406 billion invested, that amounts to £7.3bn being “skimmed off” each year.

Some fund managers have consistently delivered investor returns that more than justified their charges; Neil Woodford at Invesco, Evy Hambro at BlackRock, Robin Geffen at Neptune, Tom Dobell at M&G, Ian Henderson at JP Morgan and Job Curtis at Henderson are six that spring to mind. But many others have failed to do so and while investment returns remain low, interest in charges is likely to increase.

Few investors cared if annual management fees were 1 per cent or 2 per cent back in the 1990s when total returns often ran into double digits. Now they are glad to be grossing 6 per cent or 7 per cent, many more investors are much keener to keep costs to a minimum. Regulatory changes that take effect in 2012 will force further disclosure of costs and accelerate this trend. However much their former colleagues may hate them, Messrs Miller and Smith know which way the wind is blowing and are, as usual, ahead of the game.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100007842/warren-buffett-fund-illustrates-rip-off-management-charges/

Thursday 30 September 2010

Money managers make money for themselves whilst losing money for their clients, This makes neither cents nor sense.

Asinine approach to investing

John Collett
September 22, 2010
There should be an industry overhaul on how fund managers are paid.
Asset bubbles, investing manias and financial crises. In his 25-year career in fund management, Jonathan Pain has just about seen it all. After holding senior positions in funds management, he now runs his own consultancy and has fund managers in his sights for investing in a way that leads to frequent catastrophic results for investors.
There is little alignment of interests between fund managers and their investors, Pain says.
Fund managers earn bonuses even if they lose money for their investors. "The whole thing is a sham, a complete sham," Pain says.
What is needed is a major rethink on how managers are paid and how they measure their performance. As it stands, most fund managers get rewarded for investing in stocks that they do not like and would not put their own money in.
Pain says one of the best examples of this misalignment of interests was with News Corp, when its share price shot up during the last gasp of the technology boom at the end of the 1990s.
In March 2000, News Corp reached $28 and made up 18 per cent of the Australian sharemarket. Pain says that almost every fund manager at the time regarded the stock as very expensive.
Fund managers would never have bought the stock at those prices if it was their own money, yet almost every Australian share fund manager was investing in the stock.
When, in 2004, it became known that News was about to drop out of the Australian sharemarket indices, its share price fell by more than 5 per cent as managers started selling the stock, even though the financial fundamentals of News Corp had not changed.
Holding only the stocks they really believe in would run the risk of their fund's performance falling behind the market and peer funds. A fund manager who loses 15 per cent when the market is down 20 per cent can regard it as a commendable result.
"Money managers make money for themselves whilst losing money for their clients," Pain says. "This makes neither cents nor sense.
"An investor's objective when investing in a share fund is to make a return above what they could earn on the 'risk-free' cash rate available at the bank. Surely that, too, should be the money manager's investment objective."
Having the cash return as a benchmark against which performance is measured would encourage fund managers to invest only in the stocks they believe will be good investments, rather than owning stocks they do not like just because the stocks are a big part of the market.
Many managers are really "closet" indexers but charge their unitholders the higher investment management fees that are paid for "active" management, Pain says. The way most funds manage money has more to do with protecting the managers' fees than with managing the investment risks on behalf of unitholders. Managing money relative to an index exposes unitholders to unwarranted risks, Pain says.
For example, international share funds became heavily exposed to Japanese shares in 1990 when the real estate and equity bubble there meant that Japan comprised almost half of most global equity indices. Almost half of most international equity portfolios were invested in Japanese shares despite clear signs the prices of Japanese shares could not be justified, Pain says.
It was the same story with the tech boom of the late '90s, when tech stocks made up about one-third of the US S&P 500 index. Funds were buying shares in tech companies that were not much more than blue sky.
Pain says we are seeing the same thing now.
He divides the world by debt, not geography. The emerging world includes China, India, other Asian nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia and various South American economies, including Brazil.
Then there are what Pain calls the "submerging" nations, which include most of Europe, Britain and the US, with their indebtedness likely to hold back economic growth for years.
"Australia falls somewhere in the middle - a land with developed potential and infrastructure that, if we play our cards right, will continue to be underwritten by Asian growth and thus enjoy the best of both worlds," he says.
But the "submerging" nations dominate the global equity indices followed by fund managers.
Pain says that while fund administrators manage money relative to benchmarks, they will continue to buy overpriced stocks merely to mirror an increasingly bizarre and unrealistic benchmark.

Index huggers put themselves first

The reason that managers — particularly those owned by the financial institutions — can hold stocks they do not like is that fund managers’ performances are measured relative to the performance of the market indices.
Most have an incentive to keep growing their funds under management because their fees are based on a percentage of the investment pool.
The funds run by institutions also play it safe and stick to the indices, which means they deliver average returns. They generally rely on their big brands, marketing and financial planners to attract investors’ money into the funds.
In recent years, more ‘‘boutique’’ funds (owned by individual managers) have performance fees, which are only paid on reaching certain performance targets.
Boutiques will typically have a low, fixed percentage fee and a performance fee, which is usually 20 per cent of returns above the performance benchmark. They tend to invest in the stocks they like rather than those that will deliver returns that hug the index.

http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/asinine-approach-to-investing-20100922-15ma9.html

Tuesday 19 January 2010

How investors are rebelling against professional money managers

By Edmund Conway Economics Last updated: January 18th, 2010

14 Comments Comment on this article

It is hardly headline news to say we’ve all lost rather a lot of our faith in the financial Masters of the Universe during this crisis. We all know they proved just how little they knew or understood the risks they were taking, and as we can see from the recent bonus rows, their standing has diminished considerably as a result.

What I hadn’t realised is that many of people are already putting their money where their mouth is on this one. According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, over the past year or so, people have been pulling their money out of funds managed by professional investors and fund managers, and choosing instead to invest it themselves, whether in simple shares or in exchange traded funds.



The story, according to Goldman’s chief US equity strategist, David Kostin, and as told by the chart above, is that despite the 25pc increase in the stock market over the past year or so, not one dollar went into US equity funds (in fact, there was a net outflow) – and yet over the first nine months of the year there was about $225bn of direct purchases of common shares.

It represents, according to Kostin, a “repudiation of the professional investor class by individuals, who are investing in ETFs and direct purchases of stocks.”

He prefers to frame this phenomenon (which reflects the US, but may well be mirrored over here in the UK) as a sign that people are becoming more independent when it comes to their finances, plus that they are aware that there are tax advantages of investing through exchange traded funds (which can track indices and commodities, but without having to pay a fund manager to do the legwork). However, one could just as easily see it as a sign of revulsion in professional asset managers. And for good reason.

Throughout this crisis, much of the criticism over what happened has been levelled at the banks, but far less at bank investors. And while bankers are not blameless for having done far too much in the way of slicing and dicing assets, creating toxic debt and pushing sub-prime mortgages, a semi-legitimate excuse on their part is that there was demand for these toxic assets. Which indeed there was: professional investors have been given far too easy a ride for investing in some of the dross that contributed to the crisis. They have also been given too easy a ride for not monitoring the banks fiercely enough in previous years. After all, if a few more bank shareholders (and I’m talking big pension funds and asset managers here) had scrutinised the banks (which they own), they might have realised that capital and liquidity were at paper-thin levels, leaving the banks at risk of insolvency.

Against this backdrop, and given how much wealth was lost as a result, it is hardly surprising that people are steering clear of the fund managers for the time being. That sounds like a pretty functional market reaction to me.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/files/2010/01/goldman.jpg

Friday 18 December 2009

How do professionals invest?

How do professionals invest?
Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:33pm


Ask any professional and they will tell you that they never make an investing decision without the discipline of following a framework.

Here we suggest some criteria that all investors must use when making an investment, to help you avoid getting into investments you don’t understand or losing money in the long run.

- Risk taking capacity: Suitability of the investment for your unique situation

- Financial goals: What do you need to generate returns for

- Time horizon: By when do you want to exit the investment

- Liquidity: How quickly you want to convert your investment into ready cash

- Capital growth or regular income: Whether it provides you adequate protection against inflation

- Taxability: What kind of tax liability do you create

Professionals recognize that not all investments are suited for them. Just like not all medicines are suited to all patients, you must also realize that not all investments are suitable for you.

A common question that newcomers ask is “tell me the best investment for my money” and immediately expect a one sentence answer. It’s like a patient asking the doctor for the best medicine.

Before the doctor prescribes a medicine or the relevant dosage a thorough investigation of the symptoms, allergies and pre-existing condition has to be conducted.

You wouldn’t feel confident with a doctor who blindly prescribes medication to you.

It is similar when it comes to investing. You need to do a through analysis of your unique situation before you or any advisor can choose the “best investment”.

Its for this reason that an investment made by those around you might not be the right investment for you, because you might be at a different stage of your life, with a different risk profile and financial assets and liabilities.

http://in.reuters.com/article/personalFinance/idINIndia-43714520091109?sp=true

Saturday 18 April 2009

Bears Retreat As Bullish Tilt Spreads


Bears Retreat As Bullish Tilt Spreads
Paul Katzeff
Thursday April 16, 2009, 7:36 pm EDT

Glaciers continued to melt. But investors were not quite ready to declare the Ice Age over in the April Merrill Lynch survey of global fund managers.

Optimism about growth reached its highest since early 2004. A net 24% of managers said the global economy will strengthen in the next 12 months.

Last month the percentage of managers who expected global growth equaled the portion who forecast worsening GDP. In January a net 24% forecast further contraction.

"March's apocalyptic bearishness has been replaced by reluctant bullishness," said Michael Hartnett, co-head of Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch international investment strategy.

Managers believe the worst is over in terms of the global slowdown. "But there is no bull market euphoria," Hartnett said.

China remained the main catalyst for optimism. The U.S. was a key too. But the brighter outlook broadened to include Europe and Japan.

In March a net 1% of managers feared China's economy would slow in the year ahead. This month 26% see China growing.

Going forward, bulls will be watching for signs that economies are responding to government stimulus steps, Hartnett said.

Bears will win if China slows more than expected and banks disappoint.

Sentiment regarding bank stocks finally warmed, as 26% of managers said they are underweight. Underweights hit a record 48% in March.

"That has triggered a classic rotation out of defensive sectors like consumer staples, telcos, pharmas and utilities, into cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary, industrials and materials," Hartnett said.

Technology is now the most popular global sector, he added.

Another sign of growing appetite for risk: the percentage of managers overweight in cash fell to 24% from March's 38%.

Also, the average cash balance fell to 4.9% from 5.2%.

And the portion of managers underweight in equities fell to 17% vs. 41% in March.

Pessimism about corporate profits continued to fall. Only 12% of managers this month saw slower profit growth vs. 29% last month. Pessimism peaked at 74% in October.

A warmer outlook regarding GDP and corporate profit growth impacted views on inflation. The portion of managers expecting inflation to fall over the next 12 months slipped to a net 18%. Last month 42% expected lower inflation.

That was also reflected in the net 16% who expected higher short-term interest rates within 12 months vs. 17% expecting the opposite last month. April's was the first view for higher rates in 10 months.

The portion of managers who view stocks as undervalued dropped to 30% from March's 42%.

That hurt the outlook for bonds, with only 9% of managers overweight in April vs. March's 26%. In April, 37% saw bonds as overvalued, the same as March's view.

Managers boosted their stakes in emerging markets, with a net 26% overweight vs. 4% a month ago.

The U.S. was the only other region where managers were overweight, at 14% of managers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bears-Retreat-As-Bullish-Tilt-ibd-14952322.html?.v=1

Thursday 9 April 2009

Fund management: A game of luck?


Fund management: A game of luck?

A large part of the active versus passive debate has always revolved around whether an active manager's returns are through luck or judgement.

Last Updated: 8:14AM BST 08 Apr 2009

The debate was reignited at the end of last year when Inalytics, a specialist firm that helps pension funds to select and monitor equity managers, published research which showed managers typically get only half of their decisions correct.

The research, based on an examination of 215 long-only funds worth a combined £99 billion, found that the average manager's ability to identify winners and losers was no better than 50-50. Put simply, they would do no worse tossing a coin.

Related Articles
US fund manager declares war on UK trackers
Lloyd's profits halved by storms and weak returns
Pensions crisis means we will all be retiring later
Fantasy Fund Manager: Players throwing caution to the wind
Free bus travel for elderly threatens council services

The research looked at two measurements of fund manager skill: what it termed the hit rate and the win/loss ratio. The hit rate shows the number of correct decisions as a percentage of the total number of decisions. The win/loss ratio is a comparison of the alpha generated from good decisions with the alpha lost from the poor decisions. To judge these, Inalytics daily analysed every purchase/sale, underweight and overweight made by the fund managers.

Rick di Mascio, the chief executive and founder of Inalytics, says: "The industry maxim suggests that six correct decisions out of 10 would constitute good performance. However, we did not find one manager who got six out of 10. The average was five out of 10 (49.6pc) and the really good managers only managed to get a 53pc hit rate, which was a surprise as we expected the best manager to be a lot higher."

To compensate for this, di Mascio says the average manager is able to generate good gains from "winners" to offset the losses from "losers". According to the research, the average win/loss ratio was 102pc, which means the alpha gained from good decisions was 2pc higher than that lost from the poor decisions.

"The good managers had a win/loss ratio of 120pc, with the best getting up to 130-140pc," says di Mascio. "This is where the skill comes in, running your winners and cutting out the losers. It's what differentiates the also-rans from the best. There is nowhere to hide with these numbers."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/5093111/Fund-management-A-game-of-luck.html

Tuesday 2 December 2008

Where the Herd's Headed

NOVEMBER 20, 2008, 6:34 P.M. ET
Where the Herd's Headed

Merrill's monthly survey of fund managers shows some movement into stocks and bonds. Should you follow?
By BRETT ARENDS


My favorite monthly publication has just come in. No, not The Atlantic, Forbes, or GQ.
The Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager survey.

OK, I admit it. I'm a stock market nerd. I love this stuff. The survey offers probably the best insights into what the big institutional money managers think about the market. Where they are placing their bets. And, sometimes, what they might do next.

It's a contrarian's bible. These are the people who move markets. So the assets they already own too much of are going to have a hard time outperforming, because who is left to buy more? Meanwhile, the reverse can be true for those investment classes they are currently neglecting.
The latest issue is a fascinating read. The big money crowd, the world's best financial minds, have looked at the wreckage of the worst financial crisis in 80 years. They considered the parade of humiliating fiascoes on Wall Street. And the bumbling and eye-watering extravagance in Washington. And yet the two asset classes they still seem to like are IOUs issued by the federal government, and stocks on Wall Street.

Go figure.

If you are thinking about investing in equities, you should know that institutional investors are already overexposed to U.S. stocks at the expense of the rest of the world. A thumping 55% of the fund managers surveyed now have more money in U.S. equities than their benchmark would require: Just 19% say they are under-invested in Wall Street.

Meanwhile, the picture for British and European equities is almost exactly reversed. Nearly half the fund managers say they are underinvested there.

Of course there is a lot of economic misery to come in Europe – especially in Britain, whose real estate bubble has only just begun to deflate.

Yet it's unclear whether this bad news is already factored into share prices there. British and European share indices have more than halved since last year's peaks and are now trading on multiples last seen in the mid 1980s. Several shrewd value managers are arguing that Europe – and Japan – now offer the best long-term buys.

As for bonds: I've been trying for weeks to understand fully why anyone would lend money to the federal government for thirty years, let alone at today's anemic interest rates.

The bailout parade slowly making its way through Washington, each package dazzling the crowd with its size and extravagance, is surely going to lead to slow-motion default in years to come through devaluation and inflation. That's a disaster scenario for bonds.

Nor could I understand why the only Treasurys that were unloved were TIPS – the ones that actually have inflation protection.

Now I know. These fund managers, the people who move the market, have suddenly written off inflation as a near impossibility. A startling 87% think core inflation will be lower a year from now than it is today. Just 5% think inflation might be higher.

Complacency?

You make the call. Note that just a few months ago more than four-fifths of these guys thought inflation was going to be higher than normal. So it's fair to say they're capable of changing their minds, dramatically, in a short period.

Heaven help anyone in the way when the herd suddenly changes direction.

At the moment, 84% of the fund managers think the global economy is already in recession.
One startling fact: Hardly any professional fund managers believe Wall Street analysts anymore. A whopping 90% told the Merrill Lynch survey they thought the consensus earnings estimates on the Street for the next year were too high. Amazingly, 59% called the estimates "far" too high.

That's a pretty damning indictment.

Doomsayers claim that stock markets must fall further because earnings forecasts have to come down.

Sure, Wall Street analysts remain laughably bullish. But it turns out no one with any money believes them anyway.

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com