Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
yet another subtle and deft piece of analysis from rekenthaler
How complex this is getting. Is it different from SJ Gould on Ted Wms batting 400 (or not)? NBA player improvements? Today's Golden Age of piano and violin chops? Lots of holes in the data, though.
I'd suggest that a very good "older" manager is still a lot better than a half-dozen younger but untested or even incompetent ones. And, an older "bloated", but extremely well diversified and well managed fund, having very low expenses might still be preferable to one of those smaller newfangled "modern management" types sporting high ERs. (Why does Garrett Van Wagoner come to mind here:-)
It would take volumes of data and analysis to dissect properly what the author purports to do - and I'd still be very skeptical. 1980 to the present generally featured several strong bull markets along with generally declining interest rates. Suspect different approaches and skill sets prosper in that environment than in a less robust or generally recessionary environment with persistently rising rates.
The period was also marked by much higher participation in markets by retail investors than prior to 1980 due to both the advent of the 401K which largely replaced defined benefit pensions and also due to the baby boomers nearing retirement. There's a difference between managing funds with gradually growing asset bases than funds that are essentially flat or experiencing outflows.
This is sure to add fodder to the passive index camp, but I don't think it necessarily needs to. And, the whole idea of analyzing individual manager traits under a microscope strikes me as ill-suited for some of the larger fund firms having deep management benches, defined organizational culture/structures, and their own strong in-house research. Some like D&C openly promote a team-based management approach. Others, like Price, while touting certain "fund managers", essentially rely very much a team-based approach.
I'd suggest that a very good "older" manager is still a lot better than a half-dozen younger but untested or even incompetent ones. And, an older "bloated", but extremely well diversified and well managed fund, having very low expenses might still be preferable to one of those smaller newfangled "modern management" types sporting high ERs. (Why does Garrett Van Wagoner come to mind here:-)
It would take volumes of data and analysis to dissect properly what the author purports to do - and I'd still be very skeptical. 1980 to the present generally featured several strong bull markets along with generally declining interest rates. Suspect different approaches and skill sets prosper in that environment than in a less robust or generally recessionary environment with persistently rising rates.
Why does Dan Fuss come to mind here? Liberally paraphrasing: rising interest rate environment? That's where the fun is. (I can't find any quote close to this, but I'll swear that he's expressed delight in getting back to the environment of his professional youth - two decades plus of rising rates.)
Comments
I'd suggest that a very good "older" manager is still a lot better than a half-dozen younger but untested or even incompetent ones. And, an older "bloated", but extremely well diversified and well managed fund, having very low expenses might still be preferable to one of those smaller newfangled "modern management" types sporting high ERs. (Why does Garrett Van Wagoner come to mind here:-)
It would take volumes of data and analysis to dissect properly what the author purports to do - and I'd still be very skeptical. 1980 to the present generally featured several strong bull markets along with generally declining interest rates. Suspect different approaches and skill sets prosper in that environment than in a less robust or generally recessionary environment with persistently rising rates.
The period was also marked by much higher participation in markets by retail investors than prior to 1980 due to both the advent of the 401K which largely replaced defined benefit pensions and also due to the baby boomers nearing retirement. There's a difference between managing funds with gradually growing asset bases than funds that are essentially flat or experiencing outflows.
This is sure to add fodder to the passive index camp, but I don't think it necessarily needs to. And, the whole idea of analyzing individual manager traits under a microscope strikes me as ill-suited for some of the larger fund firms having deep management benches, defined organizational culture/structures, and their own strong in-house research. Some like D&C openly promote a team-based management approach. Others, like Price, while touting certain "fund managers", essentially rely very much a team-based approach.