|
Exclusive Interview:
Prof. William Sharpe Page
4
Star ratings do not measure how good a fund competes
in its asset class, but instead give good marks for
any fund that happens to be in an asset class in ascendance.
The laws of reversion to the mean cause the star ratings
to have little predictive value. The asset class that
goes up precipitously often comes down to earth equally
fast.
If there is little scientific basis to using Morningstar
"stars" as ratings guides, then why are they so popular?
"Morningstar ratings came out, took hold, and got
into everybody's consciousness," he said. "Everybody
looks at the star rating."
People need to understand how hard it is to predict
superior performance, he emphasizes. "Past performance
gives you a little edge," he said. "There is something
there, but there is not a lot."
Generally, well-designed studies show little long-term
performance consistency. For example, if growth funds
do well over 6 years, a crude study may show that
early leaders continue to outperform.
"Many fund families have so many funds they can always
find funds with four or five stars after the fact,"
he said. Fund groups often deliberately seed dozens
of small funds in anticipation that many will fail
but some will show above average performance by luck
if nothing else. "Pruning" by the industry of 3-4%
of funds every year has a big effect on performance
figures posted prominently in the financial press.
Sharpe takes issue more generally with the traditional
method of establishing a target percentage of funding
for each asset type and classifying funds according
to that asset type.
"There are a number of arguments why this is not
an efficient way to approach the problem."
"Many times with an active fund the standard descriptions
don't tell you what you are getting in terms of asset
exposures" he said. "You ought to know what you are
getting."
"The other big problem is that if you are not using
index funds, most funds are not a pure play," he said.
Ensuring that you get the asset allocation you want
can involve considerable extra work.
"What if all growth funds are bad?," he added. "If you
are going to look at someone's performance, you ought
to do it relative to a passive portfolio with a similar
style."
Will McClatchy
<<Previous
Printer
Friendly Page
|