Dow Jones & Company has contributed greatly to the world of business and investing, most notably through its gold standard news outlet, The Wall Street Journal. But in 1896 when the company named its flagship market index the “Dow Jones Industrial Average,” it created a considerable can of worms that is still open and wriggling today.
The problem is a single word, one that sounds innocuous enough: “Average.”
Synonymous with market
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has become literally synonymous with the stock market as a whole. Commentators and investors routinely summarize the entire state of the market with “The Dow hit 13,000 today,” or “The Dow reacted quickly, falling one percent.” DJIA is such an iconic market symbol, no more need be said.
Nonetheless, Mr. Dow and Mr. Jones picked a lousy name. By calling it an average, the founders equated indexes with average performance forever after.
“Average” is far above average
Funds that track indexes like the Dow get a cold shoulder from most pundits and many investors because they are perceived as mediocre, middle-of-the-pack performers. It’s a reasonable perception – an unmanaged buy-and-hold index can’t beat active funds managed by seasoned experts.
It’s a reasonable perception, but it’s not true.
It turns out that 84 percent of actively managed mutual funds failed to match the performance of their relevant Standard & Poors benchmark indexes in 2011. That’s right, only one in six active funds beat their respective benchmarks, according to this press release from S&P.
That’s a big win for indexes like the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400, and others – far better than “average.” See performance comparison chart.
Was 2011 just an anomaly? Well, it definitely was a particularly bad year for active funds versus their indexes. But previous years, though a little less bad, still show active funds, on average, finishing behind their relevant indexes. According to S&P:
If ten years isn’t a strong enough track record, let’s go back to 1980. According to John Bogle in his book Enough, the S&P 500 offered a 12.3 percent annualized total return from 1980 to 2005, well ahead of the average equity fund at 10 percent.
What do you get for your money?
With a long track record of indexes finishing ahead of the average active fund, the obvious question is why anyone would pay the higher expenses of actively managed funds to get performance that, on average, falls short of their index counterparts?
Sure, each year some active managers beat the benchmarks, even after higher expenses. But can you identify them in advance? What information would you have used a year ago to pick one of the 16 percent of better-than-index managers? It just doesn’t seem like a battle investors can expect to win.
I encourage investors to stop trying to swim against the strong current of data that shows how “average” indexes consistently outperform average active funds and take advantage of the market returns and low expenses of index ETFs.
For our most popular posts, click here.
This article may include forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements (including words such as “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” and “expect”). Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Various factors could cause actual results or performance to differ materially from those discussed in such forward-looking statements.
Nothing in this article is intended to be or should be construed as individualized investment advice. All content is of a general nature. Individual investors should consult their investment adviser, accountant, and/or attorney for specifically tailored advice.
Any references to third-party data or opinions are listed for informational purposes only and have not been verified for accuracy by the Adviser. Adviser does not endorse the statements, services or performance of any third-party vendor without specifically assessing the suitability of a third-party to a client’s or a prospective client’s needs and objectives.
An investment cannot be made directly in an index.