The warning is posted in fine print at the bottom of all mutual fund advertisements: "Past performance does not guarantee future results."
But when it comes to actively managed mutual funds, that warning should perhaps be updated to: "Strong performance almost certainly guarantees worse performance in the future."
Such a caveat would simply reflect what the data tell us about actively managed funds, which are managed by a person or team instead of being "passively" pegged to an index or other benchmark. It also explains why retirement investors have been shoveling billions of dollars into passive total-market index funds and exchange-traded funds.
The latest nail in the coffin for active funds comes from S&P Dow Jones Indices, which this month released a semiannual scorecard that tracks consistency of top-performing mutual funds over time. The study concludes that very few equity funds consistently stay at the top, especially after five or more years.
Specifically: Only 7.3 percent of domestic equity funds that were in the top quartile of performance in March 2014 were still there two years later.
Only 3.7 percent of large-cap funds maintained top-half performance over five consecutive 12-month periods. For mid-cap funds, the comparable figure was 5.8 percent; and 7.8 percent for small-cap funds.
The lion's share of retirement dollars is going into passive funds these days — and investors are better off for it. Separate research by S&P Dow Jones finds 76.2 percent of retail mutual fund managers underperformed the S&P 500 over the past five years.
That number points to the importance of fees, said Aye Soe, S&P Dow Jones Indices' senior director of global research and design. Passive funds are far less expensive — which means the hurdles to delivering superior returns are much lower.