« Bubbles, troubles | Main | Glass Half Full »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e992c53ef00d834bc00f769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boxplot as gridlines:

Comments

Dominic

Kaiser,

In reference to your question ("Am I missing something here?") -- I think the S&P 500 is the correct benchmark for this Evergreen fund. The fund touts itself as a "large cap core composite" fund, which would seem to track the performance of the S&P 500. The problem is that actively managed stock market funds tend to under-perform the S&P 500. In any given year, at most 25% of actively managed funds out-perform the S&P, and in many years, only a handful of funds (10% or so) out-perform the S&P. This is due to several factors, such as transaction costs and management fees. Even passively managed index funds have a tough time beating the market if the management fees are excessive. That's why John Bogle of Vanguard is such a fan of indexing - you just can't beat the S&P consistently year-after-year with an actively managed fund. So instead of wasting time trying to find great managers (high alphas - which are in very rare supply), it's best just to kick back and let a Vanguard index fund do all the work for you...

Anyway, love your site!

Kaiser

Dominic, thanks for your comment. I'm perplexed: am I reading the chart the wrong way? What I see is that the S&P is ranked at the bottom percentiles in each of these boxes. If this were true, then one has to come to exactly the opposite conclusion, that actively managed funds like Pioneer's are better than indices.

Dominic

Hmm, I'm actually not able to read the chart that well and I found the whole chart a bit confusing as well, but I think the basic problem is defining what the term "universe comparison" means. Does it actually mean "galaxy comparison" (i.e. the group of all large cap core composite funds, but not any other types of funds) or does it really mean "universe comparison" (meaning all funds out there, even those that invest in small caps, foreign currency, and everything but the kitchen sink). Anyway, I stumbled across a great article by Jonathan Clements in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal (page 1 of the Investing section) - he tackles exactly this problem of defining the proper universe of stocks and explains why it doesn't make sense to compare small cap performance with large cap performance.

Apparently, readers were e-mailing him with news that they were beating the S&P 500, and he described why they were probably using the wrong benchmark. (i.e. if you're investing in foreign stocks, why would you brag about beating the S&P 500?) You can find the article online this week for free, thanks to an open house the WSJ is running. Might be worth taking a look or tracking down yesterday's paper...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Vimeo and NYU. See my full bio.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues