The Two Huge Obstacles Mutual Fund Managers Have to Overcome That Most Fail At

The investment markets as a whole are veryIf the end investor utilizes an adviser, as indicated
humbling. They have an uncanny knack of toyingin the above paragraph, and the adviser adds
with those who believe they have a system tohimself a 1% portfolio management fee, that's
beat them, until they get bored with the toying13% just to break even. Most people don't just
and promptly destroy these so-called expertswant to break even, they're hiring this guy
financially without a second thought. Their fate isbecause they want to outperform. If said
often analogous to a mouse that had theinvestors are somewhat grounded in their
misfortune of falling into the clutches of a cat.expectations, and only want 1% above the
Nonetheless, we Americans have a nasty habit ofmarkets, the actual number that must be
neglecting the mounds and mounds of availableachieved is now up to 14%! If you haven't
data showing that, on average, it's difficult to beatthrown up your arms in surrender yet, let me add
the averages, so we continue, often to our ownsome other sobering numbers. If this active
peril, to search for that guru active mutual fundmanager's mutual fund is being held in a
manager that we believe can do what manynon-qualified account, taxes, both income and/or
before him have failed to do, that is, consistentlycapital gains taxes must be factored in, and if the
beat the averages.fund is being held in a 401k plan, there's expenses
What I'm about to show you is that the chore isinvolved for plan custody, and platform fees
much more complex than simply "one upping" theamong possibly many others.
averages. Most people focus only on the obstacleYour best bet is to try not to anger the
of outperformance, when there is another"investment gods" by setting far fetched goals
obstacle that must also be cleared, and thisfor yourself, which is why I believe in utilizing
second obstacle is two-fold. The obstacle itself isExchange Traded Funds (ETFs), which invest in
called "internal expenses," and the two foldindexes such as the Russell 3000 Index. The
challenge of these expenses is that the activeinternal expenses of an ETF that mimics the
manager must beat the market factoring in theperformance of the Russell 3000 index is around
costs involved for him to do the job (including the0.20%, if management fees are added on top of
costs of trading in and out of the markets, andthat it comes out to 1.20-1.45%, depending on the
paying the firm he works for and himself anamount of money under management. Trading
adequate compensation), AND he must beat it bycosts are either $9-$18 depending again on the
enough that it makes the end users, the fundamount of money managed and you should really
investors, enough above the average to make itonly trade once per quarter on average
worth their while to pay the active manager tomaximum (in both cases, the more money you
make them money while he's beating the markethave, the lower the fees.) I think you'll agree that
averages.a 1.50% outperformance is much easier to attain
As we all know from hearing and reading thethan a 4% outperformance. Of course, if you do
stats a zillion times, somewhere around 80% ofit yourself because you already know how to
the experts fail to beat the averages on aproperly allocate the assets among various
consistent basis. I'm going to go out on a limb, andnon-correlating asset classes, you can avoid the
guess that excessive internal expenses are ablemanagement fees and save yourself some more
to put the kibosh on most of the remaining 20%.money. Knowing how to properly allocate the
To add yet another possible obstacle, if anassets is how investment advisers earn their
investor hires an investment adviser to managekeep, because if the assets are properly allocated
his money, and the adviser purchases funds in hisyou can attain outperformance over the
strategy utilizing a "manager of managers" styleaverages (known as "alpha" in investment
of investing, and the adviser charges 1% for hisvernacular) by that proper allocation. In other
services, that is still another layer of expenseswords, even though you're investing in the
that must be overcome before the investorindexes, which are market averages, the whole is
makes a profit.greater than the sum of it's parts merely by
To put some numbers to what I just described,proper allocation.
let's take a hypothetical active mutual fundIn conclusion, there just might be a guru out there
manager trying to outperform say, the S&Pthat can do the difficult and outperform the
500. We'll say for the sake of this example thatmarkets, but until you find him, he also better be
the S&P finishes the year with a 10% annuala retail money manager that doesn't want only
return for the given year of our example (yeah, Ilarge institutional sums of money that the
know 10% is a beautiful, yet far fetched returnaverage American is not likely to have, what are
over the tumultuous markets of the past fewyou going to do until then? We suggest sticking to
years, but it's easy to work with so I'm going toindex investing and proper allocation. As I said in
stick with it.) If the active manager chargesthe beginning, using the outperformance number
1.50% for his hard work, he now has to earnalone, sans fees and expenses, 80% of active
over 11.50% just to break even with the market.managers fail. I don't know about you, but when
We'll say he incurs another expense of roughlythe weatherman says there is an 80% chance of
.50% in trading costs (hey, the brokers whorain, I usually take along an umbrella to wherever
execute his trades have to pay their bills to yaI'm going.
know), now we're up to 12% just to break even.