The MFWire
Manage Email Alerts | Sponsorships | About MFWire | Who We Are

Subscribe to MFWire.com's News Alerts [click]

Rating:Meet the Latest Fund Evaluation Complexities: LUP and LOP Not Rated 0.0 Email Routing List Email & Route  Print Print
Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Meet the Latest Fund Evaluation Complexities: LUP and LOP

News summary by MFWire's editors

Leave it to the team at Morningstar to throw another potential wrench into the way FAs and investors evaluate mutual funds, a wrench that raises complicated questions specifically around active management. Fundsters at actively managed mutual fund shops should consider learning (and perhaps loving?) two new acronyms: LUP (longest underperformance period in a given time period) and LOP (longest outperformance period).

Paul Kaplan, director of research at M* Canada, and Maciej Kowara, senior manager analyst at M*, authored the 20-page "How Long Can a Good Fund Underperform Its Benchmark?" report that introduces LUP and LOP and digs into them a bit, both through historical performance data and through simulations. M* veteran John Rekenthaler offers an article-length take on Kaplan and Kowara's ideas and findings.

The upshot of M*'s findings about LUP and LOP seems to be two-fold, even double-edged, for active asset managers. On the good news side, even funds that outperform over the long-term tend to have long periods of underperformance, too, meaning FAs and investors should cut them some slack when the going gets rough. On the bad news side, funds that underperform over the long-term tend to have long periods of outperformance, too, meaning that FAs and investors may pick long-term lemons that look like long-term gems. To tell the difference may take a lot more time than investors are likely to have.

"On the bright side, Paul [Kaplan] and Maciej [Kowara] did conclude that over a 100-year simulation, one could generally tell the difference between their managers who were programmed to be strong, and those who were programmed to be weak," Rekenthaler concludes. "I will leave the task to you, dear reader, to determine the disadvantages of investing with a 100-year time horizon. I believe that there are some."

For their historical research, the M* folks drew on gross performance data (i.e. fees stripped out) on 5,500 equity funds from the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia (not including Japan) from January 2003 through December 2017. They found that funds that outperformed for the full 15 year period still ended up underperforming for nine to 12 years in a row (on average) within that same time period. On the flip side, funds that underperformed for the full 15 year period still managed to outperform for 11 to 12 years in a row within that same time period.

"Hence, on average, investors who were hoping to hold outperforming funds over this 15-year period not only needed to pick the right funds but have the patience to endure periods of underperformance of nine to 11 years at some point within that period!" Kaplan and Kowara write, while also adding that "it would be a mistake to judge a fund's ability to outperform its benchmark on a track record as long as 11 years."

The researchers do caution that outperforming funds going through an LUP tend to underperform by small amounts (thus making outperformance over the long-term possible). So perhaps FAs and investors will use this research as justification to forgive funds that underperform by small amounts but not for ones that fall far behind for long periods of time. 

Edited by: Neil Anderson, Managing Editor

Stay ahead of the news ... Sign up for our email alerts now

 Do You Recommend This Story?

Return to Top
 News Archives
2021: Q2Q1
2020: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2019: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2018: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2017: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2016: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2015: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2014: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2013: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2012: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2011: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2010: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2009: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2008: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2007: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2006: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2005: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2004: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2003: Q4Q3Q2Q1
2002: Q4Q3Q2Q1
 Subscribe via RSS:
Add to My Yahoo!
follow us in feedly

  1. ETF.com Awards 2020, April 20
  2. The 31st Sub-Advised Funds Forum, Apr 20-21
  3. IDC Virtual Roundtable: Florida - April 2021, April 20
  4. IMEA Marketing Council Roundtable | Engaging Advisors In a Virtual World, April 21
  5. MMI Summit 2021, Apr 21-22
  6. MFDF Director Discussion Series - Open Forum via Zoom (Northeast), April 21
  7. FIASI virtual event - ESG in Fixed Income: Shining a Light on Transparency, Apr 22-23
  8. IDC Virtual Roundtable: Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina - April 2021, April 22
  9. Nicsa webinar - Diversity Data: What is at stake? Business, Reputation and Talent, April 22
  10. IDC Webinar: The Future of the Workplace - April 2021, April 23
  11. IDC Virtual Roundtable: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas - April 2021, April 27
  12. IMEA In Session - Post-Covid Sales Coverage, April 27
  13. MFDF Case Studies in Fund Oversight — A Virtual Roundtable for Directors, Apr 28-29
  14. IDC Virtual Roundtable: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota - April 2021, April 29
  15. 44th Annual AIMSE Marketing & Sales Conference, May 2-4
  16. MFDF Director Discussion Series - Open Forum via Zoom (Southeast), May 5
  17. ICI 2021 General Membership Meeting - Day 1, May 6
  18. Emerging Manager Forum USA, May 12-14
  19. ICI 2021 General Membership Meeting - Day 2, May 13
  20. 2021 FINRA Annual Conference, May 18-20
  21. IDC Speaker Series - Abby Joseph Cohen: A Conversation About the State of the Global Markets, May 19
  22. 2nd annual ETFGI Global ETFs Insights Summit - USA, May 19-20
  23. MFDF Director Discussion Series - Open Forum via Zoom, May 19
  24. Irish Funds Online Annual Global Funds Conference 2021, May 19-20
  25. MFDF webinar - Fund Director Compensation: MPI Annual Survey (2021), May 20
  26. ICI 2021 Operations and Technology Conference, May 20

©All rights reserved to InvestmentWires, Inc. 1997-2021
14 Wall Street | 20th Floor | New York, NY 10005 | P: 212-331-8968 | F: 212-331-8998
Privacy Policy :: Terms of Use