Index Funds
Most investors expect professional
investment managers such as those managing mutual funds to
outperform the stock market. However, this is seldom the case.
Mutual funds rarely beat the stock market benchmarks such as
the S&P 500, an index of the share of 500 large US
companies. After all if the investment managers who work round
the clock on choosing the right investments don't outperform
the stock market, why pay extra money to buy into their mutual
funds? Isn't it best to invest in index funds?
Research has shown that the majority of
stock investment managers lagged the stock market in 12 out of
20 years from 1976 to 1995. Moreover, more than half of stock
mutual funds managers have fallen short of the stock market 's
average return over longer periods as well. For example, less
than 20% of the 402 US diversified mutual funds that had been
around for the 10 years managed to beat the S&P 500 's 14%
annual return for the 10 years to April 1, 1996.
The reason most mutual funds don't
outperform the stock market averages is because the
professional investment managers at mutual funds, banks,
insurance companies, etc are the market. The portfolios they
manage account for half the value of US stocks and account for
the bulk of the trading in those stocks. Therefore, their
investment returns are the stock market returns. There are also
mutual funds annual operating expenses. When you deduct mutual
funds expenses, you are further away from stock market
averages.
How did investment managers beat the stock market in
some years?
Nearly 87% of all investment managers
beat the stock market performance in 1977. Many stock mutual
funds that outperformed the stock market (such as the S&P
500) invest in smaller cap stocks when small cap stocks are
performing well, better than large cap stocks. These small cap
stocks are smaller than those in the S&P 500.
|