Given that the performance statistics for US actively managed funds are pretty dismal (as per SPIVA reports) this implies that European fund performance (on average) is likely to be even worse - or am I reading too much into this?
Hi Joachim. Couldn't be the other way around? that the best fund manager tend to be disclosed because they want to emerge (and have they own share of fame) while underperforming funds tend to be kept anonymous until the portfolio manager improve the performance?
Also, improving the focus of transparency on fund manager could also increase the risk of a "Star Single Manager" approach, don't you think?
Given that the performance statistics for US actively managed funds are pretty dismal (as per SPIVA reports) this implies that European fund performance (on average) is likely to be even worse - or am I reading too much into this?
You are not wrong. Particularly the performance of funds in countries like Switzerland where many funds are anonymously managed, is abysmal.
Uk funds, on the other hand tend to be better, in my experience.
Hmm not sure they’re that much better 😂
Hi Joachim. Couldn't be the other way around? that the best fund manager tend to be disclosed because they want to emerge (and have they own share of fame) while underperforming funds tend to be kept anonymous until the portfolio manager improve the performance?
Also, improving the focus of transparency on fund manager could also increase the risk of a "Star Single Manager" approach, don't you think?
It could be the other way round but in my experience from Switzerland, funds are kept anonymous on purpose in order not to foster a star cult.