5-Star Past, 1-Star Future

Morningstar is renowned by professionals for their research and insights. For us everyday investors, we might recognize their signature 5-star rating system. Big banks love to brag about their stars! But do more stars equal more returns?

The rating is fairly simple. Morningstar groups funds with their peers. Funds that have beaten their peers will get 4 to 5 stars, funds that underperformed will get 1 to 2.

Based purely on historical data, it doesn't do much in predicting the future. Past 5-star performance doesn't equal future 5-star performance.

The Wall Street Journal studied thousands of funds since the star rating's inception (2003-2017) and it was clear that top-performers don't persist. Only 12% of 5-star funds did well enough over the next five years to earn the top rating. 10% of past top funds did so poorly they ended up with an 1-star rating.

This is consistent with SPIVA's findings on persistent performance, top performers from one period are unlikely to keep it up in the next.

The stars are an interesting data point but shouldn't to be used in isolation for investing decisions. Morningstar themselves acknowledge this.

"Because the Star rating is only based on past performance it should not be the sole factor in making an investment decision". - Morningstar

"Advisors" however treat stars like the holy grail. Shoving them in our faces to show how talented their managers are. It's a trick!

Big banks operate hundreds of funds at a time. Through sheer luck alone some are bound to get a 5-star rating. Winners are sold hard, while losers are brushed under the rug. When 5-star funds underperform and move down the scale (as they likely will), the banks will draw your attention to others that have moved up. Rinse and repeat.

Comments

The Art of Giving Feedback

Constructive feedback is an awkward affair. You don't want hurt feelings, but recognize the importance of honesty. You've tried the classic "hoping things will get better on its own" and unfortunately it hasn't played out. When giving feedback, here are a few things that I try to keep it mind. Start with empathy. Step into their shoes and understand their story. If you don't know, ask. Be genuinely curious. Feedback is a dynamic affair. Shared communication with a shared goal towards progress. Take the emotion out of it. Focus on the situation, not the person. Focusing on the person adds unnecessary weight to an already emotionally-bloated event. Be specific. Give clear examples. Vague feedback equals dismissed feedback. Doing above won't de-awkward things fully, but it will dampen it and increase the chance of better outcomes.

Today's Special: Humble Pie

You champion a project, fight for an idea, and then...reality sets in. That churning in your stomach isn't butterflies, it's the realization you've missed the mark. Pride will puff up your chest, and kick in the "defend at all costs" instinct. But arguing with the umpire never changed a call. Admitting you're wrong isn't a sign of weakness. It can strengthen your professional standing. In a world obsessed with the illusion of infallibility, the courage to adjust course is a breath of fresh air. It shows you're confident enough to be wrong, and adaptable enough to learn from it. Do your research, think critically, and stand behind your decisions. But when the data whispers (or screams) otherwise, don't be afraid to swallow that slice of humble pie. Be the first to acknowledge. Don't wait for someone to point out your mistake. Be open, take responsibility, and most importantly, focus on what you're going to do to address it. Don't dwell ...

Negative Feedback, Positive Lessons

In the battle against plastic bags, a five-cent tax was shown to be much more successful at deterring usage than a five-cent credit for bringing your own bags. Carrots satisfy but sticks sting, and they sting hard. So we default to the less painful choice of avoiding loss. Loss aversion impacts the way we process information. A 2019 study invited participants to learn through a series of multiple choice questions. Each question only had two options to choose from. Whether guessing correctly or not, they would still learn the right answer. Despite the identical learning opportunity, participants were much more successful at recalling the answers they guessed correctly than those they got wrong. "You're right!" feels good. We savour the moment, analyzing every detail. "You're wrong!" stings. We want to quickly forget, dismiss, and move on. When we succumb to loss aversion, we miss opportunities to learn. Failure is part of the process. We'll experie...

Herman Ye

Search