Your Basket
Your Basket
There are no funds in your basket. To add funds to your basket use the Green Plus Icon wherever you see it next to a fund.
Fund name
Aberdeen American Growth  
Fidelity American  
Schroder UK Mid 250  
M&G Recovery  
Jupiter Merlin UK Growth  
Close Basket Open basket

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table
 

Bestinvest’s 2012 dog funds revealed

The advisory firm has named and shamed the funds that have underperformed their benchmark by at least 10 per cent over the last three consecutive years.

By Lora Coventry, Senior Reporter, FE Trustnet Follow
Tuesday February 21, 2012


More than £9bn of retail investors’ money is held in underperforming funds, according to the latest Spot the Dog study from Bestinvest.

ALT_TAG

Source: Bestinvest


M&G
, Scottish Widows/SWIP and Schroders are among the worst offenders for having assets under management in underperforming funds.

The £9.24bn is a sharp fall from last year’s £23.78bn figure.

"One of the reasons we think this big fall has happened is that there’s been a big period of volatility. Fund managers have actually been able to benefit from volatility, so they’ve had a year of grace," Bestinvest’s senior investment adviser Adrian Lowcock explained.


Scottish Widows/SWIP is the worst offender this year, with £2.28bn of its assets under management in dog funds, up from £2.1bn last year. This represents a quarter of all the AUM invested in dog funds.
 
"SWIP has taken steps to address the performance of the funds mentioned in this survey," said a spokeswoman for the group. "We are encouraged that changes we have made to date have led to a reduction in the number of our funds included in [Spot the Dog]."

She also pointed out that the SWIP funds included in the survey represent less than 2 per cent of the group's total AUM.

"They’ve actually got fewer funds in the dog list this year, and their sectors are different. Historically they’ve appeared in the emerging markets sector, while this year it’s mainly UK with one global fund. It’ll be interesting to see if they can turn this performance around. It appears they may have done this with emerging markets," Lowcock added.

M&G is second in the list, up from sixth in last year’s rankings, with M&G Dividend responsible for the rise; the fund makes up 6 per cent of M&G’s AUM. A spokeswoman for M&G defended the fund’s performance.

"Alex Odd was appointed fund manager of the M&G Dividend fund in June 2010. Following his appointment, the fund’s objective was changed to focus on growing dividends for investors rather than a specific yield relative target."

"This has several potential benefits. It broadens the investment universe, gives him a greater ability to focus on long-term dividend growth and means there is the potential for greater diversification across sectors, reducing the degree of risk," she said.

Schroders is the third-worst offender, with Andy Brough’s Schroder UK Mid 250 dragging it down. It is the fifth consecutive dog listing for Brough, whose fund has shrunk from a high of £1.6bn to £1.17bn.

"We’ve seen a big drop in the amount of money in this fund – around a 27 per cent fall," Lowcock continued.

"That is not entirely attributed to poor performance. That looks like there’s money flowing out of the fund as well. We think investors are starting to pay attention to the poor performance there. It signifies how much poor performance needs to happen before investors act. We think investors should be acting sooner."

Brough defended his record, saying returns have picked up recently and that the fund is a top-quartile fund over the past three months.

"The fund is now full of very cheap stocks and I am convinced it will be back to its winning ways this year. While crude market declines can seem unsettling, they do not affect the long-term attractiveness of our chosen businesses," he explained.

"Price weakness also presents attractive opportunities to invest in companies at a discount relative to their long-term potential."

"We have experienced volatile markets before but long-term performance over 10 years remains exceptional."

Schroders pointed out that the Spot the Dog report highlights two Schroders funds as being "best of breed" – the Schroder European Alpha Plus and Schroder Tokyo in the European and Japanese categories respectively.

Two sectors that don't have any dogs are IMA Global Emerging Markets and IMA North America.

"Emerging markets is a very concentrated sector and there have been some good managers in there. The US is interesting because, while there are no bad managers running dog funds, the sector struggles for not having any good managers," Lowcock finished.



 
Add your comment
Step 1: Tell us what you think...
 

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...
You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.

Login or register free and you won't see it again.
Enter the words above:
Step 3: Submit your comment...
Submit
 
Glen McKeown Feb 26th, 2012 at 03:23 PM


An article that is good for publicity for BestInvest, and is a good fill-in for the media - but does it provide any useful information for investors.
Any figures I use will not be identical to those of Bestinvest because they will be to a different date base, but close enough to allow an assumption of reasonable compatibility.
Firstly, if you move out of any of these funds, what is the possibility of any other fund bettering the performance of the dog fund over the following 3 year period.  There is no way of making an approximate guess.
Secondly, not one of the dog funds have lost money in the last 3 years. The worst return was 4.34% pa ; the best 23.49% pa.  How bad is this be compared to cash.  I know that is an unfair comparison because of the risk associated, but we are talking about "bad" performers.
Thirdly, how prevalent are they. These funds make up between 0.617% to 3.208% of the total sector by fund size and between 1.056% and 6.410% by numbers.  Therefore, they do not represent a significant level of exposure.
Reverse the thinking.  The range of outcomes of a large number of human activities can be graphed on a bell curve.  It is therefore to be expected that there will be a number of funds that underperform, whatever the unit of measurement.  If there were no underperformers I would suggest that would be a bigger problem, since such an outcome could only happen if Investment Houses were providing incorrect figures.  What would be useful here is to know if the underperformance was better or worse than could normally be expected, and by what margin.  That may start to reveal a little information.
So my conclusion is that someone enjoyed fiddling with their computer, but they would have been better employed cleaning the Chairman's car.
Beware of numerical headlines.

Reply
Gini Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Is this underperformance against benchmark or FTSE 100/All share? Could FE trustnet give us simultaneous figures for FTSE 100 and All share Trackers alongside these,and percentage funds that outperform them please?

Reply
grahame john potter Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Why do I have to go to bestinvest's website to see actual list of funds (not managers) in dog list?

Reply
Charles Rickards Feb 24th, 2012 at 09:41 AM

An interesting snap shot of where things are over a particular time frame, and will certainly drum up a large number of fund switches. If investing in Stocks and shares is as I believe usually supposed to be for a minimum of 5 years, why does the measure look at a three year period? Just some initial thoughts though. It is good that the likes of Best Invest carry out this research, because it increases consumer awareness, however, sensationalist headlines can lead to poor outcomes for consumers!

Reply
Theo Feb 21st, 2012 at 11:37 PM

It is to the credit of Bestinvest that they do this study twice year, a public service, at their own expense. But In the league of all 2544 IMA funds in all sectors, there are 14 funds, headed by Manek Growth, which are still losing money after 10 years of trying. These are the real mangy dogs which must be named, shamed and shot.

Incidentally, more than half of these funds have an FE Risk factor below 100 which means better than the FTSE 100, you will be pleased to know...

Reply
 

Back to top of page

 

Follow FE Trustnet

Video Headlines

More Videos

Gray: Market rally has made me more bearish than ever

GMT 15:30 | 30-Apr-2013

From the analyst's desk

GMT 10:00 | 29-Apr-2013

 
Poll

Would you be concerned if a manager of a fund you owned took charge of another portfolio as well?

Yes

No

Vote

 
 
  • Stay connected with FE trustnet
  • Authorised and Regulated by the
    Financial Services Authority
  • © Trustnet Limited 2013. All Rights Reserved.
  • Please read our Terms of Use / Disclaimer
    and Privacy and Cookie Policy.
  • Data supplied in conjunction with Thomson Financial Limited,
    London Stock Exchange Plc, StructuredRetailProducts.com
    and ManorPark.com