I read an interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal about when index funds do the best vs. actively managed funds. Index funds do the best in the asset classes that are seeing the strongest returns. The study was based on a 10-year period from 1997-2007. The reason for this is active managers tend to deviate from their primary asset class (e.g. Large-Cap manager buying Mid and Small Cap stocks) when the primary asset class has performed poorly and then miss the quick run up when the primary asset class recovers.
Does this mean that you should use active managers for poorly performing asset classes? No. The problem with this conclusion is not that actively managers are picking better stocks in their primary asset class but they are moving outside their designated asset class to try and improve performance. When they do this they change your overall asset allocation and risk/return profile without telling you. If you wanted to you could do the same thing with index funds but at least you would be aware of the changes you were making.
The article also did not address if they active managers’ performance was after all fees and expenses. Actively managed funds have management fees that average 6x higher a low cost index funds. In addition if you buy an actively managed fund through a broker you load fees in addition. There is also the issue of taxes. An actively managed fund turns its stock portofilio over about 3x/year which could generate signficiant short-term capital gains on which the mutual funds shareholders are taxed on lowering their overall retrun. An index fund may only turn over 20% or less of its portfolio generating much lower taxable gains.
My advice: Stick with low-cost index funds, for superior long-term performance.