Skip to main content

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.


Popular posts from this blog

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. 

ELI5: The Stock Market

Today we get back to basics and answer some of the most common questions about the stock market.

Step One is Knowing

In school, we listen to our teachers. At home, our parents. Throughout our childhood, following instructions is praised and rewarded. When we're young, there's value in this. We don't understand how the world works quite yet, so guidance can be lifesaving.  The bias to just accept obviously has drawbacks. Insert old jumping off a bridge adage .  This conditioning is especially strong for kids from lower income households. Their parents are more likely in working class jobs involving strict order-taking. Parents of middle-class households tend to be knowledge workers where influence is essential.  Studies have shown kids from middle-income households are more willing to negotiable with their teachers. They learn from their parents that things are not set in stone. This leads to better grades and learning outcomes when compared to their lower income counterparts who don't negotiable.  In business, if we simply accept things as they are, we would never innovate. In work, w