AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871 
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Feb 24, 2019 6:18:12 GMT 7
Just been reading an article about the impact of star fund managers leaving a fund, the general finding being that the successor almost invariably performs worse relative to a benchmark than the star. There's one curious exception to this: Woodford. Not only did he substantially underperform the benchmarks with both his Invesco Income and Invesco High Income funds, performance actually improved following his departure. Odd. www.moneyobserver.com/news/if-your-funds-star-manager-quits-your-returns-will-likely-be-lower |
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Feb 25, 2019 20:42:58 GMT 7
I guess the short answer is that the numbers look b*****ks on the Woodford Barnett comparison  Quite a bit of the article looks odd. The table in particular is opaque. It would have helped to stick some dates in their to understand what exactly they are comparing. As well as the benchmarks. The data relating to Woodford during his tenure looks plain wrong to be honest: - Both the Income and High Income funds have exactly the same relative performance (to their benchmarks) to one decimal place - Not quite sure why they show two d.p. either with the last being 0 in all cases. That they're the same to 1 d.p. looks odd and unlikely over so many years, but possible - Both are negative??? relative to benchmark. -2.9%. Is this some other Neil Woodford?
Certainly doesn't fit with my experience of holding his funds for years to say he underperformed vs index. Perhaps I was dreaming all that time for outperformance, ... but now someone is saying it's worse and eve negative ??? Here's an old article from HL. It was archived:
HTF does someone equate performance like that as negative relative to benchmark??? 232 k vs 98k ???
Mark Barnett: - has returned 20.7% in the last 5 years on Invesco High Income. That's cumulative, not annualised. - is 3rd quartile over 1 year and 5 years as well as 4th quartile over 3 years. Yet still only a small negative for relative performance???
Barnett has gone thru a very rough period in the last 5 years as those 1,3,5 year stats demonstrate - unlike the article. He has a similar style to Woodford, who has also gone thru similar tough times. But that for Woodford is after leaving Invesco, whereas Barnett is still there now and struggling??? They're saying Woodford who was top quartile nearly 2/3rds of the time, above average 84% of the time (1st and 2nd quartile) and below average only 16% of the time (3rd and 4th quartile) results in negative performance relative to benchmark???. His peaks to troughs were also less volatile so not as if big one-offs could cange that. On the other hand Barnett who is 3rd / 4th quartile for his tenor has better relative performance??? Seriously the mind boggles at WTF they're talking about |
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Feb 26, 2019 18:34:17 GMT 7
The thread reminded me: Time to ditch EDIN which Barnett runs. Think I've enough riding on Woodford, and Barnett's similar style means EDIN no longer makes much sense to me. Barnett has actually done a bit better than Woodford in last couple of years, but at this point I don't want both of them  |
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Feb 27, 2019 2:07:20 GMT 7
Just reading another article on Barnett. I think he's a decent fund manager, but prefer Woodford. Again looking at the last 5 years the numbers in the original article look very odd. That means the income fund is approx 13% below benchmark and high income is approx 11% below benchmark. So no idea where the original article is getting their numbers from of -0.7% and -0.3% www.trustnet.com/news/2273452/invescos-mark-barnett-sticking-by-my-process-has-been-lonely-at-timesBTW not sure why Barnett feels lonely, Woodford and others are in the same boat |
|
