Investment Advisor is celebrating its 30th anniversary. How would you say the mutual fund business has changed in that time period?
Mutual funds used to be kind of middle of the road more or less providing market like returns, this is back in the 1950s, more or less providing market like returns, mostly less, but tracking the market reasonably, very diversified. They kind of look like the Dow Jones 30, most portfolios, or the S&P 500 even. You would buy those securities and hold them for a long time and charge the investors reasonable amounts of money for our services. It was a good way to invest for a lifetime, the old mutual fund industry. The industry changed to becoming a much more speculative industry in two ways.
One way, is creating a lot more speculative funds, funds that have much more volatility than the market, funds that are much more concentrated than the market portfolio itself. Sector funds would be would be one example, technology funds, internet funds, all those kinds of funds that we now have to choose from that have very little to do with the market. Second, fund managers are much more attuned to speculation. What we know is in the 1950s portfolio turnover of mutual funds ran around 15-20% a year and it’s now running 100% a year. Fifteen to 20% a year is a decent statement of long term investing, 100% a year is an excellent statement of short-term speculation. If short-term speculation is folly and long-term investing is wisdom, we’ve moved down the road from wisdom to folly. And somehow that disease, if you will, has been communicated to mutual fund shareholders. The rate of redemption of fund shares in the 50s averaged probably around 6% a year, leaving an average holding period for the typical fund of 16 years. Today that redemption rate runs around 40% a year. That means that the average shareholder holding is about two and a half years.
And costs should have gone down. This industry has gone in that period from being a $2 billion industry to a $10 trillion plus industry and the economies of scale that have been realized are enormous. They’ve gone far more into the pockets of the fund managers than into the pockets of investors.
And the very structure of the industry changed. Back in the 40sand 50s mutual funds were run by either partnerships or by firms owned by their principals, and the people managing the money were the people that controlled the firm. So they had a much greater feeling of fiduciary duty to shareholders than mutual funds today. That whole structure–privately held firms, investing rather than speculating, owners of the firms were investment people. Now, of the 40 largest mutual fund complexes, 30 are publicly held; mostly by financial conglomerates. These financial conglomerates have bought into the mutual fund industry, I hope you’re sitting down for this revelation, have bought into the mutual fund industry in the hope of earning a return on their capital, which you do by building up assets under management essentially, rather than earning a high return on your capital, the mutual fund investor. So I see a different mutual fund industry and it’s probably fair to say, I’m not particularly keen on what I see.
Are mutual funds still the way to go for the average American?
Absolutely. The problem is that the investors are just getting this message. What is investing all about? Investing is all about putting money to work in businesses and enjoying the return that businesses earn on their capital. The stock market it turns out, particularly as represented by mutual funds, is a giant distraction to the business of investing. In the long run 100% of stock market returns are created by dividend yields when you buy in, it’s better to buy in at 6% than at 1%, obviously, and subsequent earnings growth.
The problem with the fund industry [is] it takes too much out of that return, as our financial institutions generally do. Just to give you an example, and this make the point very strongly in thinking about the long term rather than the short term: by common consensus, the all in cost–expense ratios, sales loads, portfolio turnover costs, which are hidden but exist–is around 2.5% a year. So let’s assume that we’re lucky enough to get an 8% return from the stock market. A dollar at 8% over fifty years, which is less than an investment lifetime, grows to $47. At 5.5%, which is what the fund investor would get from that market, the dollar grows to $14.50. So the investor puts up 100% of the capital, the investor takes 100% of the risk, and the investor gets roughly 30% of the 50-year return. The financial system, including the mutual fund system, puts up 0% of the capital, takes 0% of the risk and gets 70% of the long-term return. It just doesn’t seem like that works well for the investor.
What do we do about it?
What we should do is have much greater focus on index funds, I should underscore low-cost index funds, while we’re just speaking about stocks here for the moment, I do want to mention that everybody should have a bond position. I use a very rough, crude rule of thumb that a bond position should equal their age, plus or minus. At 50 you might want to be 40% bonds, or 30% bonds, and at any event, [you should have] more bonds as you get older.
To come back to how do you buy stocks? You buy them through an index fund. The magic of an index fund is simply that it guarantees and I quote the subtitle of one of my books: The Little Book of Common Sense Investing: The Only Way to Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns.
We will own these companies in the index fund, every company in the United States, or every company in the world if you like to do it that way, and hold those stocks forever. There’ll be no turnover costs and the fee should not be more than 10 or 15 basis points as compared to 250 and the tax efficiency should be very high.
By the way, I didn’t even take taxes out form that cost of 2.5% [the difference between the 8% and 5.5% on mutual fund returns] before even though the mutual fund is basically the most tax inefficient investment vehicle ever designed by the mind of man. We turn our portfolios over now realize taxes but portfolio managers get paid on pre-tax returns, they don’t care about post-tax returns, but for equity fund investors who are taxable, it’s still one more big penalty.
But I digress, the index fund simply gives you the returns earned by American business and those returns are very similar to the growth of earnings in corporate America and are very similar, and this shouldn’t surprise anybody, to the growth of our GDP, the growth of the American economy. So in fact you’re getting a share in American business or a share in America when you buy an index fund. You can hold it forever. You don’t have to worry about the portfolio manager changing. This is a world where the portfolio manager changes every five years for mutual funds. So if you’re investing for a lifetime, and it’s very important to get this idea out there, and you have four mutual funds, that means you have four managers in five years, eight managers in 10 years, 16 managers in 20 years and 32 managers in 40 years. Anybody seriously put forth the proposition that you can beat the market when you have 40 managers in 50 years.
I would like to have a federal statute of fiduciary duty requiring managers to put the interests of their shareholders first. That would be pretty extreme. If you believe in the Biblical caveat that “no man can serve two masters” all these funds that are owned by conglomerates and the public are serving two masters and paradoxically those big financial conglomerates have a fiduciary duty, not only to the mutual funds but to their own public shareholders. So that can not go on, particularly since the duty to the public shareholders in the firm, the stockholders in the marketplace, takes a much higher priority than your putting the shareholder where he belongs, as your sole interest. So I’d like to have that federal standard of fiduciary duty saying shareholders come first, saying that fund managers have due diligence on security analysis, and also participate actively in corporate governance so we force our corporations to serve the interest of their shareholders, too.