Mas debate de gestión activa vs pasiva ... Hay muchos matices y no es blanco o negro
Muy interesante, esta claro que de una u otra forma siempre hay que ir a 5 o 10 años por lo menos!
Jeremy Beckwith, an analyst at Morningstar, said shares in smaller companies, which have more scope to grow quickly than their larger peers, were poorly represented in tracker funds because the funds’ stakes are proportional in size to the companies’ representation in the index.
In the UK, for instance, the FTSE All Share Index, which most tracker funds aim to replicate, is dominated by the 10 biggest companies. These heavyweight shares, which include BP and Vodafone, make up more than a third of the index.
A fund that can take significant stakes in small companies has the scope to outperform a tracker, whose fortunes are strongly influenced by this small group of huge companies. (It also has more scope to underperform, of course.)
In the case of Europe and Asia, successful fund management is all about buying the “right countries”.
Mr Beckwith said: “Both economic and political factors can change quickly and either negatively or positively impact on how that country’s stock market performs. The fund managers are paid to switch the money around when they see fit to either take advantage or protect capital, whereas the tracker funds do not have this freedom.”
The fact that active funds in America struggled to beat trackers will come as little surprise to the more experienced investor.
The majority of US funds, over both short and long time periods, fail to beat the S&P 500 index.
Mike Deverell of Equilibrium, the wealth manager, said: “The US is seen as a very efficient market with every stock followed by hundreds of professional analysts. This makes it very difficult to spot a bargain. We only use tracker funds for clients who want exposure to America.”
Que al final es lo que siempre he pensado, si quieres saber mas que los demas, mira hacia donde hay menos ojos mirando... Las oportunidades tienden a estar en inversiones poco liquidas, en small caps, en empresas desconocidas, en paises en los que hay pocos fondos invirtiendo etc etc...
Otra cosa a tener en cuenta es el rebalanceo, como nos dice Burton G. Malkiel professor of economics at Princeton University
The first decade of the 2000s has been called the “lost decade,” because most people lost a lot of money. They lost in index funds, they lost more if they were invested in growth funds. But if they were diversified across markets and different investments, and they rebalanced each year, I find that they could have doubled their money during the “lost decade.” This isn’t something I made up after the fact. This is using the asset allocations I have had in earlier editions of the book. The thing you needed to do was to have some bonds in the portfolio and you needed to be diversified internationally, including in emerging markets. You shouldn’t have a portfolio of simply U.S. stocks.