‘For a while I’ve been following the Indexology blog written by S&P.
As the name and source suggest, the blog extolls the virtues of indexing–after all, S&P makes them and sells information about them. I find the posts to be generally interesting. My only quibble is that the Indexology people seem to be true believers in a strong version of the efficient markets hypothesis. They’ve all drunk the Kool-aid and don’t stop to question how it can be that basically every professional active manager underperforms …nor do they try to imagine what circumstances could create even a temporary burst of outperformance.
I’m well aware of all the figures about equity manager underperformance. However, I’d never thought much about bond funds, the subject of the Indexology post of March 12th.
The numbers are stunning.
bond fund (under)performance vs. benchmarks
Here they are:
–in 2014, 97% of the government bond funds underperformed, as did 98% of the investment-grade corporate bond funds
–in both categories, over 95% underperformed over the past five- and ten-year periods
—73% of the junk bond fund managers underperformed in 2014; over the past five years, 88% underperformed; over the past ten, the number is 92%.
–among actively managed senior loan funds (which don’t contain bonds; they hold pieces of syndicated bank loans to non-investment grade corporate borrowers), 70% outperformed last year. Over the past decade, though, underperformers and outperformers are just about equal in number.
–61% of municipal bond managers outperformed in 2014. 55% did so over the past fie years. However, over the past ten, 70% underperformed.
reasons for this woeful showing?
Indexology offers none. Personally, I have no firm ideas.
Looking only casually at the results of Bill Gross over his years at Pimco left me with two impressions of the former Bond King:
— he continually bet very aggressively (and correctly) that interest rates would fall–sort of like an intelligent version of Jon Corzine, and
–a large chunk of his outperformance disappeared through the high fees Pimco charged for his services.
Indexology doesn’t talk about fees, which can’t have improved the situation for bond managers generally–and I presume the Indexoogy numbers are after them.
The better areas for relative performance are smaller and contain less liquid securities. I wonder what role pricing–which I presume is not based on daily trading but on the theoretical models of third-party experts–plays?