With most things, you get what you pay for. But when it comes to actively managed mutual funds, paying up for Wall Street's finest gave you terrible results in 2011 -- and there's a very simple reason why.
Understanding the trends
Fund-analysis company Morningstar routinely compares the performance records of actively managed mutual funds to stock market benchmarks. By looking at how mutual fund managers perform compared to broad market measures like the S&P 500, you can get a read on whether the Wall Street pros you pay in the hopes of obtaining market-beating performance actually deliver the goods.
In 2011, the answer for most pros was an emphatic "no." According to Morningstar, nearly four out of five large-cap fund managers did worse than the S&P 500 -- and that's despite the fact that the benchmark index itself did pretty poorly, with the index finishing flat on the year and posting a total return after dividends of about 2%.
The fact that pros underperformed what you could have gotten from a simple S&P 500 index fund isn't all that new. But the sheer magnitude of the underperformance was unusual, as you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a time when more managers fell short.
So how did fund managers do so badly last year? The answer lies in the need for mutual funds to distinguish themselves from the crowd in order to be successful.
Active fund managers are under constant pressure to produce strong results. In comparison to the simplicity, ease of use, and cost-efficiency of index funds, active fund managers face the challenge of overcoming higher operating costs to produce superior returns.
Typically, one way that fund managers can distance themselves from the market is by choosing stocks that don't make up a large portion of the index and using those stocks as their benchmark. For large-cap mutual funds, buying the largest stocks in the S&P 500 opens a fund manager up to criticism as a so-called "closet indexer" and raises questions as to why an investor should pay the higher fees of active management over cheaper index funds.
Unfortunately, the largest stocks in the S&P 500 actually did quite well last year. The biggest component, Apple
Elsewhere in technology, IBM
Similarly, energy stocks ExxonMobil
Even among underperformers, most of the damage wasn't severe. Microsoft
Back and forth
Of course, megacap giants don't always outperform their smaller counterparts, and that's why mutual fund managers sometimes beat the indexes they track. Yet with their cost disadvantages, it's always an uphill climb -- and all too often, the challenge ends up defeating active fund managers and costing their investors.
Making the most of your money is one key to a prosperous retirement. Funds can be useful, but the best stocks can really make a difference to the size of your nest egg. Get some great ideas in The Motley Fool's latest special report on retirement, where you'll find three smart stock picks as well as some easy-to-follow guidance for setting a great overall investing strategy. It's free, but read it today while it's still available.
Tune in every Monday and Wednesday for Dan's columns on retirement, investing, and personal finance. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Fool contributor Dan Caplinger hopes to visit the New York Stock Exchange someday. He doesn't own shares of the companies mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple, Microsoft, and IBM. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Apple, Microsoft, Chevron, and ExxonMobil, as well as creating bull call spread positions on Apple and Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Fool's disclosure policy never leaves you a loser.