投资共同基金或许没那么糟

    一项新研究显示，投资共同基金或许并不是浪费钱。这一评价不算高，但比起这类流行投资工具近来获得的评价，这样的说法还算不错了。

    如今，人们对一般共同基金经理的评价往往介于傻子和骗子之间。批评者历来认为，投资一只指数基金（不加选择地将资金投资于比如标准普尔500指数）强过投资一只个股精选基金。

    比如，去年就有84%的共同基金表现不如类似指数。即便是在华尔街，指数投资似乎也开始占据上风。近几年，越来越多的资金流向上市交易基金（ETF）和其他倾向于跟踪指数表现的基金。

    但对共同基金的批评是不是有些过头了？或许是。美国国家经济研究局（National Bureau of Economic Research）本周发布的一项最新研究显示，很多共同基金经理收取较高的管理费确实有其道理。表现不错的基金有望再热一段时间。另外，个人在选择高回报基金方面似乎也做得相当不错。

    问题是这些结论并没有看上去那么好。与其他研究不同，由分别来自斯坦福大学（Stanford）和凯洛格商学院（Kellogg）的两位经济学教授撰写的这份《共同基金行业管理技能评估》（Measuring Managerial Skill in the Mutual Fund Industry ）报告通过资产加权方式来衡量共同基金的回报。因此，大基金的损益对计算结果的影响远超小基金。而且，大基金往往比小基金更有可能表现优于指数，或者即便弱于指数，落后幅度也较小。因此，这项研究发现，虽然大部分共同基金（57%）的表现不如指数基金，但受大基金回报率推动，共同基金总体上仍呈现增值。

    个人有能力选出高回报基金，听到这也别忙着高兴。研究发现，这些基金考虑到自身的优异表现，通常会调高收费，很快抹去选择优秀基金经理所获得的任何收益。“很多人表示，积极管理不合算，因为投资者必须付费。”斯坦福大学商学院经济学教师乔纳森•伯克说，“我们发现基金经理确实是靠技能进行收费，然后通过薪酬拿走这些钱。因此，投资者用不着在意这些。”

    这项研究或许更说明了为何仍有数以万计的共同基金存在，但还是没有给出一个信服的理由让我们把钱投入这些基金。选择正确（很多人或许能做到，但当然不是每个人都能做到）的积极管理基金并不比指数基金糟。因此，即使在最好情况下，选择一只积极管理的基金也是在浪费时间（即便不浪费钱）。这样说，听起来怎样？

    译者：早稻米

    A new study suggests that investing in mutual funds might not be a waste of money. It's lowly praise, but it's a better review of the popular investment vehicles than they have recently been getting.

    The prevailing view these days puts the average mutual fund manager somewhere between dope and charlatan. Critics have long contended that individuals would be better off in an index fund, which blindly invests its money in say the S&P 500, rather than going with one of the thousands of funds that try to pick individual stocks.

    Last year, for example, 84% of mutual fund managers failed to best a similar index. Even on Wall Street, indexing seems to be winning more of the day. In the past few years, more and more money has been going into ETFs and other funds that tend to track indexes.

    But has the criticism of mutual funds gone too far? Perhaps. The new study, which was released this week by National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that a lot of mutual fund managers do earn their keep. And funds that do well tend to stay hot for a while. What's more, individuals seem to do a pretty good job of picking the funds that will be the winners.

    The problem is this is not as great news for fund investors as it appears. Unlike other studies,Measuring Managerial Skill in the Mutual Fund Industry asset-weighted mutual fund returns. So gains and losses at larger funds entered more into the calculations of the two co-authors, two economics professors, one from Stanford and the other from Kellogg's graduate business school, than smaller funds. And larger funds, had a tendency to outperform their index, or at least underperform less, than smaller funds. So while the study did find that the majority of the funds, 57%, tended to lose money relative to index funds, overall, the average mutual fund manager, propelled by the returns of the larger funds, added value.

    The fact that individuals were able to pick the funds that would do better than average was also a mix blessing. The study found that those funds, recognizing their superior performance, usually increase their fees, quickly erasing any gain individuals got from selecting the better managers. "There are a lot of people who say active management is bad deal because investors have to pay a fee," says Jonathan Berk, teaches economics at Stanford University's graduate school of business. "What we found is that managers do make the fee up with their skill, and then take it away in compensation. So investors should be indifferent."

    In the end of the day, the study may do a better job of explaining why tens of thousands of mutual funds still exist. But it doesn't really offer a compelling reason to put your money in them. Pick correctly, which many may do, but certainly not everyone, and actively managed funds aren't any worse than an index fund. So in the best case scenario, selecting an actively managed fund is a waste of time, though perhaps not money. How's that for a ringing endorsement.