Percentage of Truly Skilled Active Managers Not Very High 1 comment
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Matthew Hougan
Let me get this straight: Without reading the research, Jim Wiandt dismisses the 0.6% figure as absurd?
That's a little too quick for me. I didn't spend hours pouring over the research paper, but I did at least read it.
But ... umm ... OK ... I'll play along with your little "no data thought experiment."
First, though, let's be clear about the question we are trying to answer. We're not just asking "what percentage of active managers have some skill." We're asking, what percentage of active managers can:
- a) beat the market over the long-term out of stock-picking ability and not luck
- b) beat the market by a large enough margin to compensate for both expense ratios (averaging about 1% per year?) and internal trading costs (estimated by most observers to average around 1%)
- c) do it consistently over time, even as assets grow into the multi-billions?
There are currently about 8,000 mutual funds. 0.6% of 8,000 is 48 funds. You're saying that there are more than 48 actively managed funds out there today that consistently deliver alpha?
And that those funds deliver enough alpha to more than make up for a 1%-3% annual all-inexpense ratio?
And that those funds stay small and nimble enough that they can repeat those results again and again?
And that there are more of those funds than would be accounted for by luck and random distribution?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here to a point --- numbers are easy to massage. But I don't think the percentage of active managers delivering enough alpha to make up for their expense ratios is very high.
Related Articles
|






























This article has 1 comment: