PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series               MARKETS WORK            RISK & RETURN                ...
PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series  The actual data tell a different story. In the bottom chart, each ...
PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series  In summary, relying on past performance to choose future mutual fu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Power point slides morningstar predictive power series

503
-1

Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
503
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Power point slides morningstar predictive power series

  1. 1. PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series MARKETS WORK RISK & RETURN IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE PREPARATION CHAPTERS Home Insight Tools Topics Fund Center My Account Search ADVISOR GUIDE DASHBOARD April 18, 2012 305 recent views 982 views all-time Morningstar Predictive Power Series Client Ready Adaptable PowerPoint Slides Topics Predictive Morningstar Power Predict Market efficiency Sharpe Past Efficiency Returns Future Can Ratios Series Performance Market Related There is no related material. Download Slide Strong past performance by a mutual fund does not reliably predict how the fund will perform in the future. Guide Slide 1: Morningstar is a US-based research firm that publishes stock and mutual fund data. The firm is widely known for its mutual fund “star” rating system. The system rates mutual funds according to a five-star system, with five stars indicating superior performance for the time period. Although Morningstar warns against choosing funds solely on its star rating, many investors do just that in their quest for higher returns. But they should not expect their narrowly focused approach to produce reliable results over time. This slide documents the challenge of picking a future winner based on its Morningstar rating. The top chart displays all US-based mutual funds (over 6,000) based on their Morningstar rating at the end of 2006 and sorted by historical star rating strength, from strongest to weakest.1 The bottom chart plots fund performance over the subsequent five-year period based on each fund’s percentile return rank in its respective peer category. A low percentile indicates high relative performance. If funds with high star ratings could repeat their top relative performance in the future, the data in the bottom chart would demonstrate this, with high-star-rated funds delivering high relative returns, and lower-star-rated funds showing lower relative performance. The chart would display fund performance in stair-step fashion, with a large concentration of five-star funds in the higher percentile range (e.g., top 20%) and most lower-rated funds concentrated in the bottom percentiles.https://my.dimensional.com/tools/slides/80375/[4/27/2012 11:14:13 AM]
  2. 2. PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series The actual data tell a different story. In the bottom chart, each star rating displays broadly dispersed relative five-year performance, confirming that a fund’s past rating does not indicate future returns. Note also that nearly one third of funds across all star ratings failed to survive the subsequent five-year period, as indicated by the Dead Funds line. These results are consistent with fund performance research, which finds little evidence of persistent outperformance based on star ratings.2 1. The funds are sorted first by Overall Star Rating, followed by Ten-Year Star Rating, Five-Year Star Rating, Three-Year Star Rating thenby the Three-Year Total Return Percentile Rank in Category. 2. Christopher R. Blake and Matthew R. Morey, “Morningstar Ratings and Mutual Fund Performance,” Working Paper, March 15, 1999. Slide 2: Some investors look to financial metrics to anticipate future mutual fund winners. But are metrics any better at predicting performance than Morningstar’s star ratings system? Let’s consider the Sharpe Ratio, a popular metric that measures an asset’s return relative to its volatility. In this example, the ratio is calculated by first subtracting the risk free rate from the return of the fund, then dividing by the fund’s standard deviation. A positive ratio indicates better historical risk- adjusted performance. This slide sorts the US fund universe (over 5,800 funds) by five-year Sharpe Ratio (top chart) and shows the funds’ subsequent five-year annualized returns, with each fund positioned according to its prior period sort (bottom chart). If a fund’s historical Sharpe Ratio has predictive power, one would expect to see higher-ratio funds producing higher relative returns in the subsequent period. This is not the case. The broad dispersion of five-year returns shows no statistical difference between high- and low-ratio funds. So, funds with high Sharpe Ratios have no better chance than low-ratio funds of delivering exceptional performance in the future. Slide 3: Many investors assume that a fund’s past performance offers insight into a fund manager’s skill and prospect for future success. The next three “Past Performance” slides illustrate that choosing a US mutual fund based on its strong track record does not guarantee persistently strong relative returns in the future. In fact, a fund’s historical performance offers no insight into its manager’s skill or ability to repeat this performance. In this slide, the top graph sorts US equity mutual funds by 10-year ranked performance (1997-2006). The bottom graph shows subsequent five-year performance of the funds (2007-2011) sorted by prior period ranking. Both graphs show the average annualized return of the S&P 500 Index. The five-year returns in the bottom graph appear random, illustrating that most mutual fund winners do not persist in the future. Moreover, a significant portion of funds—about 25% in this analysis—do not even survive the period, and the proportion of non-survivors appears to grow among the low-performing funds, as indicated by the red plot points on the baseline. These results are broadly consistent with much of the research into the persistence of mutual fund performance and implied skill. As a whole, this research casts doubt on the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund managers after adjusting for survivorship, and finds persistence only among poor performers.1 1. Noteworthy studies include: Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Luck versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns,” Journal of Finance, 65, no. 5, October 2010. Mark Carhart, “On Persistence of Mutual Fund Performance,” Journal of Finance, 52, no. 1, March 1997. Stephen J. Brown and William N. Goetzmann, “Performance Persistence,” Journal of Finance, 50, no. 2, June 1995. Slide 4: Following the same methodology as the previous slide, these charts show initial 10-year ranked performance and subsequent five-year performance of the US Large Value Mutual Fund universe. Average annualized performance of the Russell 1000 Value Index is offered for comparison. As shown in the bottom graph, previous fund performance appears to have little bearing on future outcomes relative to the market benchmark. Approximately one-fourth of the original funds did not survive the subsequent five-year period. With the exception of non-survivors, which appear mostly in the bottom half of the universe, a mutual fund’s historical performance offers no predictive power for investors. Slide 5: The principle of non-persistence also applies to US Small Value Mutual Fund returns, although the universe for the ten-year period (1997–2006) is smaller than the previous illustrations. All of the outperforming funds in the first ten-year period continued to outperform the Russell 2000 Value Index in the next five years, and all but three of the underperforming funds beat the index as well.https://my.dimensional.com/tools/slides/80375/[4/27/2012 11:14:13 AM]
  3. 3. PowerPoint Slides: Morningstar Predictive Power Series In summary, relying on past performance to choose future mutual fund winners appears to be an exercise in futility. Funds with high past returns offer no predictive power for investors who are attempting to capture high relative performance in the future. Investors are better served by choosing funds based on more substantial criteria, such as investment philosophy, financial objectives, targeted asset class exposure, risk tolerance, and cost—and integrating the funds into a broadly diversified portfolio structured for long-term participation in the capital markets. Send us feedback Was this useful?  Add as a favorite Yes   No All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. This article is provided for informational purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation or endorsement of any particular security, products, or services. Prospectuses Legal Notices © 2012 Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, Dimensional on the Web: reproducing, duplicating, or transmitting of this material is prohibited. Public Website Privacy Fama/French Forum Blog Help & Contact Logouthttps://my.dimensional.com/tools/slides/80375/[4/27/2012 11:14:13 AM]

×