Before buying a TV or a toaster, I check out the reviews. Of course I take them with a pinch of salt. But if a few sources give one model a high rating and say another is better used for scrap, that’s meaningful.
In the wacky and weird world of investing, this approach can lead you astray.
A reader asked us:
Comments on this entry are closed.
I would love to hear your opinion on Vanguard’s (not quite a year old – but nearly) passive investment retirement funds e.g. Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 A Fund Acc. Especially verses the Vanguard Life Strategy funds. I have been investing in the 60/40 and 40/60 – rebalancing on my age to reduce risk over time but I’m now considering the Retirement funds going forward instead.
Carol, you are probably looking for an expert view, and I am certainly not one. However, my 2 cents. Whilst retirement funds are target date funds, Lifestrategy funds are target risk ones. If lifestrategy funds are being contemplated for retirement, conventional asset allocation theory would warrant you to reassess your equities / bond allocation say once in 5-7 years and there may be a case of switching over to a lower equity lifestrategy fund. Retirement funds do away with you having to do even that. Your asset allocation is taken care for life, including the addition of inflation linked bonds towards your twilight phase.
@Carol — Here you go:
http://monevator.com/vanguard-target-retirement-funds/
(@Amit — Thanks for covering! 🙂 )
re. the ‘why take a chance on active funds at all?’ approach, I’ve been passively investing all my life and been happy to do so as my SIPP and ISAs have steadily grown. However, as I now start to exit the growth phase of my holdings and approach an income phase (both SIPP and ISA will be used to supplement a Final Salary pension that will form the majority of my retirement income), I’m not sure the passive v active question is quite so clear cut. Why go for a low cost passive tracker, or selectively passive ETF, yielding 2 to 3% when an easily selected portfolio of established income and growth ITs can yield 4 or even 5%?
@BD – is it something to do with looking at total return, i.e. capital growth and dividends? being willing to sell off a slice if needs be on top of whatever dividends you receive?
I think if you take that view, then passive would hopefully still bring you out in front of active?
For some though, its a psychological step too far to think about using up any capital, and they only want to spend dividends no matter what. If that were true for you then maybe you are on the right lines?
@Brummie Dave – I would agree with The Rhino and just sell off a percentage each year. However, you should check out Greybeard’s posts on this site about using Investment Trusts in retirement.
@TI – Do you know who decides which benchmark is used as the measure of performance which an active fund is measured? Does the active fund manager have any influence on that benchmark? I can’t help but feel that benchmarks for active funds are a rearview mirror exercise in marketing literature trickery. Do some active funds switch which benchmark their fund is evaluated against over time, so as to be able to show there was outperformance against that particular benchmark in the past.
What happens if a fund manager switches from say 60% equity and 40% bonds to 40% equity and 60% bonds during the life of the fund. Can the active fund manager switch the benchmark used? Do they have to move, and if so, do they get to decide on the timing. If they have any element of control, can’t they show outperformance against a benchmark, whereas in fact what they were holding relative to the benchmark in question historically was actually a rather different mix of asset classes…..
In this weird world of QE and negative returns on long dated bonds, perhaps we have to start re-thinking the conventional wisdom of holding more bonds in retirement? I think we shall all need to live with more risk in future. Perhaps Monevator could comment on that in relation to the Slow & Steady Portfolio?
BrummieDave, you can also check out some of the passive dividend-biased ETFs like SPDR Dividend Aristocrats range if you don’t want to go the total return route.
On a side note I am struggling to pull the trigger on a bond fund buy at the moment, that is part of my desired asset allocation. Already have SLXX and HYLD. So want something shorter duration, any fans of ishares up to 5 year £ corp bond IS15 here? More yield than 10 yr gilts, less interest rate risk and still investment grade, if not govt-safe.
I will add some shorter dated gilts at some point but no rush there.
Rhino and Rich, thanks both.
I’m very familiar with Greybeard’s posting and look forward to the next instalment…
Brilliant website this btw – I love it!
Nice as always to receive a sound dose of common sense.
One point about choosing a passive fund though; what about tracking error?
Tracking error usually includes the fund’s underlying cost and gives a good idea about how well it is sticking to its benchmark as well – so shouldn’t this should be an important measuring stick when investing passively..?
@ SemiPassive
“any fans of ishares up to 5 year £ corp bond IS15 here?” SP
Yes a core holding for us.
This reader is doing his or her research, and it’s a sensible-sounding question.
And they seem to be sensibly questioning what we write, too.
The question was in response to our latest Slow & Steady model portfolio update. Several Vanguard index funds are in that mix.
Now, I’m not sure exactly which tracker fund the reader is referring to. The fund name they have given us is too short.
We can see Vanguard is the fund provider. FTSE is the index provider. And ‘Index’ tardily confirms that yes it’s an index fund – but we’d need more to know which specific fund.
Superficially, this matters. One Vanguard ‘FTSE index fund’ in the model portfolio has a five-star rating at Morningstar. Another has a four-star rating.
But perhaps the reader was referring to one we don’t use, the Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust Accumulation Fund. This mouthful does sport a two-star rating.
No matter. From the perspective of a passive investor, you can ignore these ratings altogether.
Stars in their eyes
According to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) 2016 report into the asset management industry:
So index trackers are more likely to get average ratings.
Eek! This might sound like a reason to use active funds. But let’s pause for a moment before we wheelbarrow our money down to The City’s bonfires.
For starters, there’s copious evidence the average active fund underperforms the market after fees.
One landmark UK study found over 70% of active funds failed to beat their benchmarks over ten years. A more recent US study (cited by the Financial Times) showed 99% of actively managed US equity funds underperform.
Assigning index funds ‘average’ ratings when most active funds underperform seems a stretch.
Then again, the system rates funds against funds, not mere benchmarks.
So sure, the average fund is average. But what if the top-rated funds – the five-star funds – did beat the benchmarks? Wouldn’t index funds then be justly consigned to average status, and shouldn’t we all buy five-star active funds?
Maybe, but that isn’t the world we live in.
According to the FCA:
There’s a lot of long words there. The important ones are: “statistically indistinguishable from zero.”
The five-star funds do not beat their benchmarks over the periods studied.
Morningstar recently admitted as much, with the FT reporting:
So no reason to swap cheap index funds for expensive active funds, after all.
Now before anyone at Morningstar throws in the towel and takes up gardening, their ratings are not completely useless. If you’re an active investor they may be worth a look.
The FCA found that over periods of three and five years:
If you’re dead set on active funds, it’s worth knowing the top-rated funds did better on average. (For its part Morningstar says a review should also consider longer time periods.)
But what the FCA report seems to be dancing past is that five-star funds don’t beat the market. See the earlier comments I cited.
Which means fewer-than-five star funds presumably do worse than the market.
Which begs the question: Why take a chance on active funds at all?
Best Buys: A relative term
One reason might be because you’ve been encouraged into active funds by Best Buy lists and other promotions by platforms.
Oops! You best sit down. The FCA has some unfortunate news.
Firstly, such lists only offer a token nod towards passive index funds. The FCA found that’s better than in the old days; before 2014 no passives featured on any lists it studied.
But still, representation remains woeful:
The FCA looked at the lists of five platforms.
Source: FCA
For a passivista this table makes grim reading. We know index funds do better than active on average but they make up less than 10% of the Best Buy entries.
Storm the metaphorical Bastille!
Easy tiger. Perhaps passive funds aren’t on the lists because they identify superior active funds?
A market-beating active fund would be better to own than an index fund that lagged the market by costs. Maybe the Best Buy lists are the fabled treasure maps that show the way?
Ha ha, only kidding. According to the FCA report:
No treasure here then.
Now, as with the Morningstar ratings the Best Buy lists are not entirely useless. The FCA found that funds on the lists did do better than funds not on the list.
But that doesn’t change the wider point. If even the Best Buys don’t outperform, why gamble on them when you can get the market return from index funds?
If they knew better most investors wouldn’t risk it.
Cheap is usually best
The FCA paints a picture of investors being steered towards active funds for no good reason.
You see the same thing in newspaper and magazine articles.
I’m loathe to name names – our own website is hardly without faults and biases. But for instance one big publication’s podcast always runs through a laundry list of active funds to end its discussions. Passives are rarely if ever name-checked.
Okay, so if the media, the ratings and the Best Buys lists aren’t doing the greatest job, how should you pick a fund?
Well, we think most people are best off deciding to go passive. Once you’ve made that decision you can run through the selection process we’ve described before.
For shares you might simply choose a good world index tracker fund. Indeed you might be best going for an all-in passive product like the LifeStrategy funds.
If you had to look at just one metric, then rather than ratings or Best Buy lists you’d do better looking at fund fees.
According to an article by Russel Kinnel of Morningstar:
There’s even a compelling graphic showing how well lower cost fees perform:
The ‘success ratio’ here means a fund staying open and outperforming their group.
Source: Morningstar
Of course all this data does is steer us into index funds via another route. In theory equally cheap active funds would be candidates for consideration. But in the UK costs don’t compare and it’s hard to see how they ever could on a long-term basis.
Aim average, do better
Investing is a matter of choices. Most people have no business striving to outperform the benchmarks, given the poor odds. They should choose to get broad exposure to markets via index funds as per their long-term plan.
But if you do want to try to beat the market with active funds, remember the odds of success are low. You’re unlikely to keep your money in the few market-beating funds. And the maths of high fees is always against you.
To illustrate, the FCA found that:
That’s a massive differential. Why compete in a worse than zero sum game? Why not let someone else buy an expensive fund manager his sports car?
Well, it’s a free world and good luck if you must try. Fund ratings and Best Buy lists might offer some starting points for research in that case.
But for passive investors, they are best ignored.