Stingy Investor Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Screens | Links | SNW | Rothery Report
 
Frugal Funds

There are two general lines of thought when it comes to picking funds. Indexers expect that they will do better than active fund investors by minimizing fees. On the other hand, active fund investors postulate that they will do better by relying on the skill of expert portfolio managers.

Either way, costs matter and fund fees are largely combined into a fund's Management Expense Ratio or MER. To see how fees affect performance consider an index fund with a MER of 0.5% where the underlying index has risen by 10%. In this case the index investor's return would be 10%, less 0.5%, or 9.5%. Similarly, if an active fund charges a MER of 2.5% and its clever portfolio manager gained 12% then the investor would achieve a gain of 9.5% (12% less 2.5%).

The average equity fund charges a MER of about 2.5% and at first blush this rate might not seem to be very high. After all, until recently, many fund investors were rewarded by returns of 20% and 2.5% seems like a small price to pay. However, under most circumstances 2.5% is actually quite high. Let's consider putting $100,000 into both Fund A (with a MER of 0.5%) and Fund B (with a MER of 2.5%). In the next five years both funds gain the same amount before fees and achieve annual returns of 10%, 5%, -5%, 15% and 0%. After the five years Fund A's investors take home $123,194 and Fund B's investors get $111,797. The 2% fee difference nets $11,397 more for the low cost investor.

Indexers rightly point out that a 2% cost difference is large and they are skeptical that skill counts for much. For active fund investors to outperform they must select managers who can beat the fee differential.

Most active fund investors pick their funds by focusing on past performance. Various mutual fund rating guides cater to this desire and use past performance as their sole selection criteria. More advanced services tweak things a bit by incorporating fund volatility or some measure of how consistent returns were. However, in the end it is all about past prices. If a fund has done well then it is assumed that the manager has skill and the role of luck is discounted.

Regrettably, past performance has long been shown to be a poor predictor of future success when it comes to mutual funds. With the aid of globefund.com I looked at the top 10 performing Canadian growth funds of 1999. All had achieved stunning gains of over 31% but investing at the end of 1999 would have been a poor decision. In 2000 eight out of ten of the funds did worse than average and only two did marginally better. The ten 1999 winners fared even worse in 2001 (January 1 to December 7) with nine out of ten doing worse than average. It should be noted that the one fund that did better than average in 2001 was not one of the two that did better than average in 2000. This example provides just a taste of the evidence against buying the best past performers and is illustrative of the dangers associated with performance chasing.

Should performance be totally ignored? No, it turns out that really bad performance is a fairly good indicator of unskilled management. If a fund has been in the bottom 25% of performers with a high degree of regularity it is best avoided. Regrettably you can only weed out about 10% to 15% of managers this way and you need a long track record of poor performance to do so. You can cut out the truly horrible managers but it is hard to tell the difference between mediocre and good. This is a significant problem if you are relying on good management to earn 2% more than average management.

Taxes are also a big issue for regular investment accounts. Consider a portfolio manager who gains 15% annually before taxes over a 20-year period and pays 27% on realized gains. If they didn't buy or sell a single stock in that 20-year period then they would have an after tax-return of 15%. However, if they bought and sold their entire portfolio each year then they would have achieved a much lower return of 11% after tax (see www.tweedy.com). Tax minimization is a key advantage of the buy-and-hold approach and is ignored by many actively managed mutual funds. Recently funds have been forced to publish portfolio turnover in their prospectuses. Lower turnover funds are generally better performers because they trigger less tax and incur lower brokerage fees.

When selecting active mutual funds, investors should first minimize fees. This means a low MER, low turnover and no loads. Secondly, managers with a horrible longterm track record should be shown the door. This straightforward approach produces a short list of frugal funds some of which are shown in Table 1. I have taken the liberty of assigning a star rating to each fund with high star funds charging particularly low fees and achieving low turnover.

By sticking to low cost funds the active investor benefits from the main advantage of indexing and may gain from professional management. Will these funds outperform? It is hard to say for sure but I think that they have a better than average chance.

A complete list of frugal funds is available on request.

TABLE 1 - SELECT FRUGAL FUNDS
StarsCanadian Equity Funds
5 PH&N Canadian Equity
5 Bissett Canadian Equity F
5 Leith Wheeler Canadian Equity
5 Mawer Canadian Equity
4 PH&N Canadian Growth
4 Perigee Canadian Select 35 Equity
4 Scudder Canadian Equity Class
4 Saxon Small Cap
4 Saxon Stock Fund
4 GBC Canadian Growth
3 Mawer New Canada
3 Scotia Canadian Mid Large Cap
3 HSBC Equity Fund
3 ABC Fundamental-Value
Stars Canadian Dividend Funds
5 PH&N Dividend Income
5 Scotia Canadian Dividend
5 Bissett Dividend Income F
4 Nat Bank Dividend
4 BMO Dividend Fund
4 HSBC Dividend Income
3 Altamira Dividend Fund
3 IRIS Dividend Fund
3 Royal Dividend Fund
Stars International Funds
4 Bissett Multinl Gro F
4 Mawer World Investment
4 Perigee International Equity
3 Saxon World Growth
3 Bissett Intl Equity F
3 Scudder Global Cl
3 ICM International Equity


Date: Jan 2002

  MoneySense Articles
 Cdn Top 200 2016
 US Top 500 2016
 Retirement 100: 2015
 Cdn Top 200 2015
 US Top 500 2015
 Retirement 100: 2014
 Cdn Top 200 2014
 US Top 500 2014
 Retirement 100: 2013
 Cdn Top 200 2013
 US Top 500 2013
 Retirement 100: 2012
 Buffett Buys
 FB IPO
 Stocks that pay
 Value in the S&P500
 Cdn Top 200 2012
 US Top 500 2012
 Retirement 100: 2011
 Where to invest $100k
 Where to invest $10k
 Summer Simple Way
 A crystal ball for stocks?
 Cheap & safe
 Risky business
 Cdn Top 200 2011
 US Top 500 2011
 Retirement 100
 Dividend investing
 Value investing
 Momentum investing
 Low P/E P/B
 Dividends
 Dividend growers
 Cdn Top 200 2010
 US Top 500 2010
 Graham's prescription
 Income 100: 2009
 The case for optimism
 Cdn Top 200 2009
 U.S. Top 500 2009
 Wicked investments
 Simply spectacular
 Income 2008
 Small stocks, big profits
 Cdn Top 200 2008
 US Top 500 2008
 Value that sizzles
 So simple it works
 Income 100
 No assembly required
 Investing by the book
 Cdn Top 200 2007
 US Top 500 2007
 Invest like the masters
 A simple way to get rich
 Top Trusts 2006
 Stocks for cannibals
 Car bites dogs
 Cdn Top 200 2006
 US Top 1000 2006
 So easy, so profitable
 Top Trusts 2005
 Dogs of the Dow
 Top 200 2005
 Money for nothing
 Yield of dreams
 Return of the master

MoneySaver Articles
 2 Graham Stocks for 2017
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
 5 Graham Stocks for 2016
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
 3 Graham Stocks for 2015
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
 4 Graham Stocks for 2014
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
 6 Graham Stocks for 2013
 9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
 8 Graham Stocks for 2012
 Simple Way 2011
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
 7 Graham Stocks for 2011
 Simple Way 2010
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
 8 Graham Stocks for 2010
 Simple Way 2009
 Timing Temptation
 19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
 4 Graham Stocks for 2009
 Simple Way 2008
 Active at Passive Prices
 Unbundling ETFs 2008
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
 5 Graham Stocks for 2008
 Is your index too active?
 Graham's Simple Way
 Canadian Graham Stocks
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
 8 Graham Stocks for 2007
 Top SPPs
 The Simple Way
 A hole in your IPO?
 Monkey Business
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
 Graham Stock Gainers
 Blue-Chip Blues
 Are Dividends Safe?
 SPPs for 2005
 Graham's Simplest Way
 Selling Graham Stocks
 RRSP Money Market Funds
 Stingy Stocks for 2005
 High Performance Graham
 Intelligent Indexing
 Unbundling Canadian ETFs
 A history of yield
 A Dynamic Duo
 Canadian Graham Stock
 Dividends at Risk
 Thrifty Value Stocks
 Stocks in Short Supply
 The New Dividend
 Hunting Goodwill
 SPPs for 2003
 RRSP: don't panic
 Desirable Dividends
 Stingy Selections 2003
 10 Graham Picks
 Growth Eh?
 Timing Disaster
 Dangerous Diversification
 The Coffee Can Portfolio
 Down with the dogs
 Stingy Selections
 Frugal Funds
 Graham Revisited
 Just Spend It
 Ticker Temptation
 Stock Mortality
 Focus on Fees
 SPPs for the Long Term
 Seeking Solid Stocks
 Relative Strength
 The VR Approach
 The Irrational Investor
 Value Investing

Globe & Mail Articles
 Indexing advice
 Media-shy stocks
 Curse of size
 Market uncertainty
 Be even lazier
 Scary beats safe
 Small, illiquid, value
 Use the numbers
 What value is good value?
 Sculpt for value
 Value vs CAPE
 Graham Rules
 CAPE vs PeakE
 Top value ratio
 Low Beta
 Value and dividends
 Walter Schloss
 Try unloved AIG
 Why I'm a value investor
 New world of ETFs
 Low P/Es possible
 10 yielders
 Be happier
 Long-Short
 Dividend Downside
 Shiller's P/E
 Copycat investing
 Cashing in on class
 Index roulette
 Theory collides
 Diving too deep
 3 retirement villains
 Scourge of inflation
 Economic omens
 Analyst Expectations
 Value stock scarcity
 It's all in the index
 How to pick good funds
 Low Beta Wins
 Hunt for dividend stocks
 Think garage sale

Advisor's Edge Articles
 Passive Rebundling
 Doing the math

Norm Speaks
Flip Books

Tools:
 Asset Mixer
 Periodic Table
 ETF Fee Calculator



 
About Us | Legal | Contact Us
Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...