Alpha dogs as talent shortage looms for stock portfolios

Long-only popularity slides; new managers gravitate toward hedge funds

Jul 10, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

By Jason Kephart

+ Zoom

Things could get a lot worse before they get better for long-only equity mutual funds.

Beset by inconsistent performance and the growing popularity of indexing, the long-only stock funds have been shedding market share for years.

Active equity funds held $4.4 trillion, or 34% of mutual fund market share, at the end of last month, down from $4.7 trillion and 42% of the market share at the end of 2007, according to Lipper Inc.

“They still have a lot of assets, but in general, it's not a positive story,” said Brent Beardsley, a partner at the Boston Consulting Group, an asset management consultant.

To make matters worse, their dwindling popularity is making it harder for mutual fund companies to attract top talent, he said.

“The new talent isn't going to long-only stock funds. It's going into hedge funds,” Mr. Beardsley said.

“Mutual fund companies are not getting the talent they're used to,” he said. “It's hurting the ability to generate alpha.”

That is bad news for an industry that had a hard enough time generating alpha when stock mutual funds were cool.

From 1999 to 2003, for example, more than half of large-cap funds underperformed the S&P 500, according to Standard and Poor's.

From 2004 to 2008, less than 30% beat the index. Over the last five years, less than 25% outperformed.

Although increased correlation among stocks is a popular theory for why active managers have failed to beat their benchmarks, a study by The Vanguard Group Inc. found that there is plenty of opportunity to produce alpha in the market, lending credence to the theory of a talent drought.

More than half the stocks in the S&P 500, for example, finished with a return more than 10 percentage points different than the benchmark annually since 2000, according to Vanguard.

That is at least 250 opportunities to overweight stocks that will outperform or underweight stocks that underperform the benchmark index.

The average 1% or so fee that investors have to pay an actively managed fund doesn't help managers' performance either, but if there really is a talent problem, there might not be a fee small enough to push managers past their benchmark.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Events

Pershing's Crowley: The case for business transformation

Your practice is changing rapidly. What worked five years ago might not work for the next five years. Pershing's Jim Crowley has some solutions as your business evolves.

Video Spotlight

Will It Last As Long As Your Clients Do?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

The Catalyst

Sponsored by Pershing

Latest news & opinion

Nationwide's 401(k) record-keeping fees are excessive, lawsuit claims

Plaintiffs claim practice of charging plans a percentage of assets is unreasonable.

Wealth management firms struggle with lower fees, fewer new clients

Advisers in North America earned less from clients last year and saw a decline in average fees, according to a new report by PriceMetrix.

These investors are allowed to put $500K into a Roth IRA at once

The HEART Act permits rolling all or part of life-insurance and combat-related-fatality payouts directly into the tax-free retirement plan, but few take advantage.

Labor's Alexander Acosta and SEC's Jay Clayton tell lawmakers they will work together on fiduciary rule

In separate appearances before Senate panels, the regulators stressed the cooperation that Republican legislators and opponents of the DOL fiduciary rule are demanding.

Brian Block denies cooking the books at Schorsch REIT

Former CFO claims everything he did was 'appropriate' and 'correct.'

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print