Studies have consistently shown that people are more likely to understand and retain information that is conveyed visually rather than verbally or in print. I regularly receive requests for copies of the Powerpoint slides. So for those of you that have never seen one of my presentations on the value of InvestSense’s proprietary metric, the Active Management Value Metric (AMVR) 3.0, here is a simple explanation of how the AMVR can help you detect cost-inefficient actively managed mutual funds in your personal portfolios and 401(k) plan accounts and better protect your financial security.
The Active Management Value Ratio Metric (AMVR) 3.0
Active Management Value Metric (AMVR) 3.0 is based on combining the findings of two prominent investment experts, Charles Ellis and Burton Malkiel, with the prudent investment standards set out in the Restatement (Third) Trusts’ “Prudent Investor Rule.”
[R]ational investors should consider the true cost of fees charged by active managers not as a percentage of total returns but as the incremental fee as a percentage of the risk-adjusted incremental returns above the market index.” – Charles Ellis
Past performance is not helpful in predicting future returns. The two variables that do the best job in predicting future performance [of mutual funds] are expense ratios and turnover. – Burton Malkiel
Active strategies, however, entail investigation and analysis expenses and tend to increase general transaction costs,…If the extra costs and risks of an investment program are substantial, those added costs and risks must be justified by realistically evaluated return expectations. Accordingly, a decision to proceed with such a program involves judgments by the [fiduciary] that: (a) gains from the course of action in question can reasonably be expected to compensate for its additional costs and risks;… – Restatement (Third) Trusts [Section 90 cmt h(2)]
The following slide is based on the returns and risk data of a popular actively managed mutual fund over a five-year period, compared to the returns and risk data of a comparable Vanguard index fund. When InvestSense does a forensic AMVR analysis, we examine both a five and a ten-year period to analyze consitency of performance. The actively managed fund charges a front-end load, or purchase fee, of 5.75 percent. The Vanguard index fund does not charge a front-end load.
Mutual funds ads and brokerage accounts often provide a fund’s returns in terms of its nominal, or unadjusted returns. In our example, the actively managed fund does even produce a positive incrremental return, resulting in an additional cost, an opportunity, cost for an investor. This is a common scenario due to additional costs and fees, e.g., higher expense ratio, higher trading costs, typically associated with actively managed mutual funds.
Had the actively managed fund actually produced a positive incremental return, the question would be whether the actively managed fund’s incremental costs exceeded the fund’s incremental returns. If so, this would result in a net loss for an investor, making the fund cost-inefficient and a poor investment choice.
However, Investors who invest in funds that charge a front-end load do not receive a fund’s nominal return since funds immediately deduct the cost of the front-end load at the time of an investor’s purchase of the fund. Since there is less money in the account to start with, an investor naturally receives less cumulative growth in their account when compared to a no-load fund with the same returns. This lag in cumulative growth will continue for as long as they own the mutual fund.
The calculation of a fund’s load-adjusted returns can be somewhat confusing. Several online sites provide load-adjusted return data, including marketwatch.com and the fidelity.com site.
In our example, once the impact of the front-end load is factored into the fund’s returns, the fund further underperforms the benchmark, the comparable Vanguard index fund. This double loss clearly makes the fund even noire cost-inefficient and a poor investment choice.
A final factor that should be considered is the risk-adjusted return of a fund. When comparing funds, it is obviously important to know if a fund incurred a higher level of risk to achieve its returns relative to another fund since investors may not be comfortable with such risk. As the quote from the Restatement points out, at the very least, investors would expect a higher return that would compensate them for a higher level of risk.
In our example, the actively managed fund assumed slightly less risk than the Vanguard index fund. As a result, the actively managed fund’s returned improved slightly, but not enough to avoid the same double loss suffered in the load-adjusted scenario. Once again, this double loss clearly makes the fund cost-inefficient and a poor investment choice.
The investment industry will often downplay unfavorable risk-adjusted results, saying that “investors cannot eat risk-adjusted returns.” However, the combined impact of additional fees and under-performance should not be ignored by an investor. Each additional 1 percent in fees results in approximately a 17 percent loss in end return for an investor over a twenty-year period. Historical under=performance can be considered an additional cost in evaluating a fund’s cost-efficiency since investor’s invest to make positive returns and enjoy the benefits of compounding of returns.
Interestingly enough, funds that may criticize risk-adjusted performance numbers have no problem touting favorable “star” ratings from Morningstar, which bases its “star” rating on, you guessed it, a fund’s risk-adjusted returns. Risk-adjusted return data for a fund can be found on the “Taxes” tab, which factors load-adjusted returns into their calculation
In my legal and consulting practices, we add two additional screens. The first screen is designed to eliminate “closet index” funds. Closet index funds are actively managed mutual funds that essentially track a market index or comparable index fund, but charge fees significantly higher, often 300-400 percent or higher, than a comparable index fund. Conseqently, closet index funds are never cost-efficient.
The second screen InvestSense runs is a proprietary metric known as the InvestSense Fiduciary Prudence Rating (FPR). The FPR evaluates an actively managed mutual fund’s efficiency, both in terms of cost and risk management, and consistency of performance.
The Active Management Value Ratio™ 3.0 (AMVR) is a simple, yet very effective, tool that investors and investment fiduciaries can use to identify cost-inefficient actively managed mutual funds and thus better protect their financial security. All of the information needed to perform the AMVR calculations is freely available online at sites such as morningstar.com, fidelity.com, and marketwatch.com.
For those willing to take the time to do the research and the calculations, the rewards can be significant. For fiduciaries, the time spent can be especially helpful in avoiding unwanted personal liability, as plaintiff’s securities and ERISA attorneys are becoming increasingly aware of the forensic value AMVR analysis provides in quantifying fiduciary prudence and investment losses. As a result, more securities and ERISA attorneys are incorporating AMVR analysis into their practices.