Investors turned their backs on traditional mutual funds in 2014 and began relying more heavily on indexing.
Since launching the Vanguard 500 fund in 1975, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle has been preaching the gospel of indexing — a plain-vanilla, low-cost strategy that calls for buying and holding all the stocks in a market and “settling” for average returns. He’s so fervent that his nickname in the industry is St. Jack.
Forty years laters, investors have finally found religion.
In 2014, the Vanguard Group attracted a record $216 billion of new money, largely on the strength of its index offerings and exchange-traded funds. These are funds that can be traded like individual stocks and that almost always track a market index.
Vanguard wasn’t alone. Blackrock, which runs the well-known iShares brand ETFs, attracted more than $100 billion of new money in 2014, a year in which investors both small and large embraced indexing, also known as “passive” investing.
By comparison, actively managed mutual funds — those that are run by traditional stock and bond pickers — saw net redemptions of nearly $13 billion last year, according to the fund tracker Morningstar.
There’s are several simple reasons for this:
1) Fund inflows generally follow recent performance.
And in 2014, the S&P 500 index of stocks outperformed roughly 80% of actively managed funds, noted Michael Rawson, an analyst with Morningstar.
He added: “When the market rallies strong, a lot of active managers tend to lag, maybe because they’re being more conservative, holding more quality stocks, or maybe holding a little bit of a cash — it is common for an active manager to hold some cash. So it’s difficult to keep up with the rising market.”
2) 2014 was a year when many heavy hitters espoused their preference for indexing.
In August, MONEY’s Ian Salisbury reported how the influential pension fund known as Calpers — the California Public Employees’ Retirement System — was openly considering reducing its use of actively managed strategies for its clients.
This came on the heels of a provocative column written by a Morningstar insider questioning whether actively managed strategies had a future. “To cut to the chase,” wrote Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler, “apparently not much.”
And as MONEY’s Pat Regnier pointed out in a fascinating piece on Warren Buffett’s investing approach, the Oracle of Omaha noted in his most recent shareholder letter that his will “leaves instructions for his trustees to invest in an S&P 500 index fund.”
3) Plus, new research from Standard & Poor’s shows that even if active managers can beat the indexes, they can’t do that consistently over time.
The report, which was published in December, noted that “When it comes to the active versus passive debate, the true measurement of successful active management lies in the ability of a manager or a strategy to deliver above-average returns consistently over multiple periods. Demonstrating the ability to outperform repeatedly is the only proven way to differentiate a manager’s luck from skill.”
Yet according to Aye Soe, S&P’s senior director of global research and design, “relatively few funds can consistently stay at the top.”
Indeed, only 9.84% of U.S. stock funds managed to stay in the top quartile of performance over three consecutive years, according to S&P. This is presumably because over time, the higher fees and trading costs that actively managed funds trigger become too difficult for even the most seasoned managers to overcome.
Even worse, just 1.27% of domestic equity portfolios were able to stay in the top 25% of their peers for five straight years. For those funds that specialize in blue chip stocks, the numbers were even worse. Of the 257 large-cap funds that finished in the top quartile of their peers starting in September 2010, less than half of 1% remained in the top quartile for each of the subsequent 12-month periods through September 2014.
As Soe puts it, this “paints a negative picture regarding the lack of long-term persistence in mutual fund returns.”