Your Fund Isn’t Killing You, But It Isn’t Helping Either

A parade of fund managers, showing both their eclectic viewpoints and love of the United States and its capitalist system

Last month we claimed that the same stocks are often held by the same funds. But we didn’t back it up with any data.

Lipper is the go-to company for fund research. This is their list of the largest mutual funds by net assets. Let’s walk through the relevant abbreviations and codes.

The 3rd column lists the funds’ objectives.

IID is intermediate investment-grade debt. “Intermediate” refers to the length of the debt, 5 to 10 years.

SPSP means the fund is supposed to replicate what the S&P 500 does.

MLCE is multi-cap core funds. “Multi-cap” means the fund invests in a range of market capitalization sizes; everything from giant companies to small ones, with no more than ¾ of its value in any one size. If you want that size quantified, well, you’re asking too many questions. (That’s not a copout. We seriously couldn’t find a formal definition.)

CMP is commodities precious metals, which means not just physical gold and silver, etc., but their corresponding derivatives.

MLGE is multi-cap growth funds. Same as MLCE, except MLGE funds invest in stocks with above-average price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and 3-year sales-per-share growth value.

We’ll spare you the rest of them – if you want the details, they’re here – but now we’ve got 3 categories (SPSP, MLCE and MLGE) that specialize in equities, as opposed to debt or commodities.

Here are the biggest holdings of the SPDR S&P 500, the largest S&P 500 replicator:

Apple 4.66
Exxon Mobil 3.26
Microsoft 1.81
IBM 1.76
General Electric 1.72
AT&T 1.71
Chevron 1.71
Johnson & Johnson 1.54
Wells Fargo 1.46
Coca-Cola 1.44

Here are the largest of the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, the largest multi-cap core fund and one whose very summary says it’s “designed to provide investors with exposure to the entire U.S. equity market, including small-, mid-, and large-cap growth and value stocks.”

1

Apple

2

Exxon Mobil

3

Microsoft

4

IBM

5

AT&T

6

General Electric

7

Chevron

8

Procter & Gamble

9

Johnson & Johnson

10

Pfizer

Wow, what tremendous diversity. Did you notice how although the two funds’ 1st– through 4th– and 7th-largest components are the same companies in the same order, the one fund’s 5th-biggest component is AT&T and 6th-biggest is GE, while the other’s 6th-biggest is AT&T and 5th-biggest is GE? It’s like they’re from different galaxies!

Finally the Fidelity Contrafund, the biggest multi-cap growth fund. It holds the stocks of, according to Fidelity, “companies whose value (we believe) is not fully recognized by the public.

APPLE
GOOGLE
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
MCDONALDS
COCA-COLA
WELLS FARGO
NOBLE ENERGY
TJX COMPANIES
WALT DISNEY
NIKE

 

Apple’s value could not be more recognized by the public if the company tattooed its logo on every citizen’s forehead. Same with Google. The only Contrafund major component that you might not have heard of is Noble Energy, a $7 billion oil and gas driller based out of Houston.

Funds make their full holding data difficult to access. Contrafund has 413 components (which is nothing compared to the Vanguard fund, which has 3220 components.) The Fidelity fund’s components are listed here. We can’t put an image in the site, it’d run for way too many columns, but here’s a summary:

Microsoft is 50th on the list. The Contrafund’s 2nd-biggest component, Google, is 13th on the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund list while Berkshire Hathaway is 36th, McDonald’s is 25th, Coca-Cola is 15th, Wells Fargo is 11th and Disney is 33rd.

It doesn’t matter whether you do business with Fidelity, with Vanguard, with American Funds or with PIMCO. Buy a mutual fund, at least one that deals in equities, and you’re paying a fund manager to say “Hmm…this Apple looks like a good buy. I think I’ll pick some up.”

Look, this isn’t necessarily an argument for you to stop whatever your occupation is and devote the requisite hours to becoming an amateur fund manager. Whatever motivates you. Rather, we’re asking you to acknowledge that “picking” hundreds of stocks en masse barely counts as picking. Choosing the stocks of the largest, most profitable, most widely held companies doesn’t take any special aptitude or knowledge. It’s a defensive measure, done purely out of the fund manager’s self-interest. He’s thinking:

I’m 20-something. I’m making ridiculous money, way out of proportion to the value I’m creating. Women are enamored of me, or at least of what I can buy. Should I actually do some research, look for nothing but undervalued stocks (which there won’t be 413 of, at least not simultaneously), sell all of my fund’s current components and buy those instead?

Of course not. The higher-ups wouldn’t have it. They’d have me, roasting on a spit. My job isn’t to provide the highest possible returns. It’s to avoid mistakes.

Understand that there is no room for outliers nor independent thinkers among the ranks of the major fund managers. The managers’ job is to be as conservative as possible. Which means your money is going to be treated conservatively, which means little chance for legitimately large appreciation. When a fund hits big returns, it’s an accident. Yes, there’s a top-performing fund, and a top 10 list. Every year and every quarter. There has to be. Someone’s got to be at the top. Whether the SPDR S&P 500 outperforms the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund thus reduces to little more than the question of whether AT&T will outperform GE.

You can do better than this. You can also do worse, but we’re talking to the ambitious among you.

Synthesizing the classical proverb with Mark Twain’s updating of it, “Put your eggs in a few baskets. And watch those baskets.” You need to buy individual stocks. You can start by reading here.

You, CFA

If you don’t handle your retirement, he might do it for you. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

You can do this.

Fund managers have to be conservative, by definition. Even the smallest fund has tens of millions of OPM (Other people’s money. What are you, 80?) under its control. A fund manager has far less margin for error than does a private investor, at least professionally. If you maintain your own portfolio, and it loses 40% of its value in a given year, that’ll affect you and a handful of others. Do so as a fund manager, and your career will be dead on impact. (Actually, that’s not true. You’d be fired way before you lost 40%.) Imagine the looks of horror and sotto voce comments at the Wharton class of ’07 reunion. (And yes, plenty of fund managers are indeed that young.) You wouldn’t dare show your face. “Is that Spencer? Wasn’t he on the fast track at Vanguard? I heard he’s working in the suburbs now. Had to cut his cocaine use back to weekends only. Poor bastard.”

Fund management, for the most part, is regression to the mean. The same funds hold the same damn stocks, over and over again. Some funds are required to hold the stocks of companies that have reached a certain size. Make the Wilshire 5000, and that automatically qualifies you to be in somebody’s fund. Join the Dow (and someone soon will, to replace recently departed Kraft), and the same thing happens.

This is perverse. The tail is wagging the dog, for lack of a more original phrase. A fund doesn’t take on a new component because the fund manager sees something he likes and discreetly buys a position before someone else can. Funds take on new components because they have to. Or because everyone else is doing it.

Furthermore, fund managers aren’t just sheep. By and large, they’re hypocrites and liars. (Yes, we know. Welcome to the human species.)

Joe Light recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Facebook didn’t just seduce ordinary investors suffering from Streisand Syndrome. The professionals got sucked in, too. Big names. Fidelity. JPMorgan. The most successful website since Google (by number of users, anyway) went public, and did so in at least a couple of senses of the phrase. Everyone was talking about it and familiar with the story of its origin (thanks to a timely and critically acclaimed big-budget movie), and few institutional investors had the fortitude to say “no”. Or even say, “Can we take a look at the company’s financials?”

160 mutual funds bought Facebook. These included Fidelity’s Dividend Growth Fund.

Read that last sentence again. Facebook doesn’t pay a dividend.

The JPMorgan Intrepid Value Fund presumably invests in value stocks. An unproven IPO (that ended up losing 1/3 of its market cap out of the gate) doesn’t fit anyone’s definition of a “value” stock.

The managers of these funds didn’t answer the allegations of impropriety. Neither did any company spokespeople. And for the sake of consistency, we’ll end this paragraph in italics, too.

So why the hell were these funds, with their objectives included in their titles, buying a stock that had nothing to do with those objectives?

Again, defense. Say Facebook did what its devotees wanted, and exploded out of the gate. The punishment, professional and otherwise, for being the manager who could’ve bought Facebook but didn’t is overwhelming.

You can complain about how the financiers are screwing the little guy, Wall Street over Main Street, etc. if it makes you feel good. Or you can go David and aim for their heads.

Being small and nimble, i.e. an individual investor, gives you advantages that no fund manager can ever enjoy. Why?

  • You don’t have to answer to anyone.
  • You can take calculated, intelligent risks. Ones where you’ve weighed the potential downside and have decided you can live with it. Professional fund managers can do that too, to some extent, but when they do it it’s no bold move. It’s a piddling activity whose downside is mitigated by there being so many components to their funds. Hundreds of funds owned General Motors stock when it got delisted and the company eventually went bankrupt. No manager who bought GM lost his job, at least not for buying GM.
  • Your objectives are clearer. You’re there to make money. To maximize return by finding value and exploiting it.
    Is a fund manager there to make money? Yes, but not as unambiguously as you are. A fund manager makes a cut, yes, and also makes a salary. Thanks to that salary, the fund manager is operating under the same directive that most people do – I must preserve my job at all costs. The higher the salary, the more tightly someone will hold onto that job and the less they’ll to do risk getting fired. Playing not to lose isn’t just acceptable, from a fund manager’s perspective, it’s good business sense. At least as far as longevity is concerned.

Yes, selecting investments (it’s not “picking stocks”, thank you very much) is hard. It’s not an intellectual exercise along the lines of solving one of Hilbert’s Problems, but it’s hard in that it requires discipline. The same intestinal fortitude that gets your heart in shape or your lungs tobacco-free, can get you rich. Here’s how to start.