Currencies

Nomura rounds up markets’ biggest misses in 2016

Forecasting markets a year in advance is never easy, but with “year-ahead investment themes” season well underway, Nomura has provided a handy reminder of quite how difficult it is, with an overview of markets’ biggest hits and misses (OK, mostly misses) from the start of 2016. The biggest miss among analysts, according to Nomura’s Sam […]

Continue Reading

Banks

RBS falls 2% after failing BoE stress test

Royal Bank of Scotland shares have slipped 2 per cent in early trading this morning, after the state-controlled lender emerged as the biggest loser in the Bank of England’s latest round of annual stress tests. The lender has now given regulators a plan to bulk up its capital levels by cutting costs and selling assets, […]

Continue Reading

Currencies

Euro suffers worst month against the pound since financial crisis

Political risks are still all the rage in the currency markets. The euro has suffered its worst slump against the pound since 2009 in November, as investors hone in on a series of looming battles between eurosceptic populists and establishment parties at the ballot box. The single currency has shed 4.5 per cent against sterling […]

Continue Reading

Banks

Carney: UK is ‘investment banker for Europe’

The governor of the Bank of England has repeated his calls for a “smooth and orderly” UK exit from the EU, saying that a transition out of the bloc will happen, it was just a case of “when and how”. Responding to the BoE’s latest bank stress tests, where lenders overall emerged with more resilient […]

Continue Reading

Currencies

China capital curbs reflect buyer’s remorse over market reforms

Last year the reformist head of China’s central bank convinced his Communist party bosses to give market forces a bigger say in setting the renminbi’s daily “reference rate” against the US dollar. In return, Zhou Xiaochuan assured his more conservative party colleagues that the redback would finally secure coveted recognition as an official reserve currency […]

Continue Reading

Categorized | Capital Markets, Financial

Pick fund managers with skin in the game


Posted on October 21, 2014

It is well established that the average active fund manager underperforms their benchmark, and that a manager who has put in a market-beating performance in the past is no more or less likely to beat the average in the future. Given these bald numerical facts, the continuing rise of low-cost index tracker funds is inevitable and to be welcomed.

But what if there was a reliable way for investors to identify fund managers who could be expected to beat the market over the long run? That might throw a lifeline to the beleaguered active fund management industry. It would also bring investors a handy extra return.

    There is a flicker of a chance that an obscure line item in the regulatory filings that mutual funds have to send to their investors might contain such a clue.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that funds disclose annually approximately how much money each portfolio manager has invested in the fund. A handful of studies this year have found that funds in which the manager has significant skin in the game might outperform those where the manager is not heavily invested.

    That sounds intuitive. In fact, it has become something of a guiding principle in other areas of business and finance. Equity investors like to see that the chief executives of the companies in which they invest have a decent shareholding; they like to see remuneration packages that include lots of stock compensation; and insider share sales are often seen as a red flag for impending problems.

    In hedge funds, too, investors can stomach the high fees knowing that a manager usually has most of his net wealth tied up in the fund. In a system of principals and agents, the alignment of interests is vital.

    It should not be overstated, however. Even mutual fund managers who have not put significant sums into their own funds get bonus compensation, pay rises and industry plaudits when they do well by their investors. Anyone who underperforms for very long gets fired. Interests are hardly misaligned.

    A study this month found an investor is likely to beat the average by some distance if they pick funds from an asset management firm whose portfolio managers are heavily invested in their funds.

    The source is hardly impartial in the active/passive debate. Capital Group, the company behind the historic American Funds family, has lost substantial market share to the purveyors of index funds in recent years.

    Yet Capital’s contribution is intriguing. It ranked asset management firms according to the proportion of their assets that are in funds where the portfolio manager has at least $1m of his or her own money in the fund, and then looked at how the top quarter of those firms have done over the past 20 years. On a rolling five-year or 10-year view, their funds beat their benchmark more than two-thirds of the time.

    The findings echo a study that Morningstar, the mutual fund research group, did earlier this year.

    Both concluded, in other words, that if you only pick funds from companies whose managers have the most skin in the game, you substantially improve your odds of beating the market.

    The two studies aggregate manager ownership data at the company level, not at the fund level. This might be fair. No investor should be piling large portions of their net worth into frontier markets or junk bonds, so it is not reasonable to demand the same of the managers of these niche funds. But it does undercut the logic. Many of the managers being measured will not in fact have the skin in the game we want to believe is motivating them.

    Maybe the positive effects seen at the company level suggest a strong corporate culture, perhaps including the ability to retain good managers; that is certainly what Capital Group would have us believe.

    But what of fund level data? Morningstar analyst Russel Kinnel examined its “Morningstar 500” of favoured funds – a list inaugurated in 2006 – and discovered that, of those whose managers have $1m-plus invested, 67 per cent had survived and beat the average of their peers over the past eight years. That may sound like a strong result, except that 60 per cent of the rest of the funds also outperformed.

    The best to be said at this point is that more study is needed. And more data. A manager is currently only expected to say which band their ownership falls in: zero, $1-$10,000, $10,001-$50,000, $50,001-$100,000, $100,001-$500,000, $500,001-$1m or above $1m. It would be helpful if mutual funds voluntarily disclosed – or the SEC mandated – more detail. Active managers have nothing to lose from providing more granular data, and potentially much to gain.

    stephen.foley@ft.com