How Our Medalist Funds Have Performed
To mark the one-year anniversary of the Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds, we look at how they've done so far.
To mark the one-year anniversary of the Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds, we look at how they've done so far.
Has it been a year already?
A year ago we launched our Morningstar Analyst Ratings for Funds. Moving from picks and pans, we adopted a five-tiered medal system with Gold ratings at the top, then Silver, Bronze, Neutral, and Negative. These medals are based on our view of a fund's long-term prospects for strong risk-adjusted performance. Essentially we are looking for funds with more competitive advantages than disadvantages. If the advantages and disadvantages cancel each other out, then we’ll likely rate a fund Neutral. If the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, we may rate it Negative.
To mark the analyst ratings’ one-year anniversary we’ll take a look at their record since their launch. Because one-year is too-short a time period for a definitive judgment, we’ll also look at our analysts’ recommendations' longer-term results, treating our former Fund Analyst Picks like Gold-rated funds.
The Long Term
Let’s start with our long-term batting averages. This one is pretty simple. We want to know what your chances of outperformance would have been had you purchased an analyst pick or Gold-rated fund. So we determine which funds outperform or underperform and then weight that based on the amount of time they were picks or Gold funds.
Through the end of October 2012, 66% of our top U.S. stock funds outperformed over the past 10 years, while 69% outperformed over the trailing five years. For taxable-bond funds, 84% have outperformed over the past 10 years, while 88% have outperformed over the past five years. For municipal-bond funds, 94% of our gold/picks outperformed over the past 10 years and 90% outperformed in the past five years.
International-stock picks/Gold outperformed 73% of the time over the past 10 years and 75% over the past five years. Balanced funds outperformed 89% over the past 10 years and 87% over the past five years.
- source: Morningstar Analysts
Versus the Index
Batting averages tell you about your chances of success, but they don’t tell you the degree of out- or underperformance, so we also calculate a portfolio level return that we compare with benchmarks. For U.S. equity, our top-rated U.S. Morningstar Style Box category funds (which includes top-rated passive funds that aim to track but not beat their indexes) have produced an annualized return of 8.0% compared with 6.9% for the S&P 500 Index over the trailing 10 years ended Oct. 31, 2012. For the trailing five years ending in October, they are a hair behind the S&P 500 with a small 0.3% gain compared with 0.4% for the benchmark.
The cumulative foreign-stock style box category Gold/picks have returned 9.6% annualized compared with 7.7% for the MSCI EAFE over the past 10 years. For the past five years, foreign-stock funds lost 3.6% annualized versus a loss of 5.8% for the benchmark.
Our intermediate-term bond Gold/picks have 6.3% annualized returns over the past 10 years versus 5.4% for the Barclays Aggregate. For the past five years it’s a 7.2% return for our favorites, versus a 6.4% gain for the index.
Our muni-national long Gold/picks returned 5.3% annualized for the past 10 years and 5.2% for the Barclays Muni. For the trailing five years, our top funds have a 5.9% return versus 6.0% for the index.
- source: Morningstar Analysts
The Past Year
We can also share the rather limited data we have so far on all ratings classes since our launch last year. Using funds that were in the initial launch on Nov. 15, 2011, and assuming they didn't change since then, we see positive signs but it is still pretty noisy. That’s particularly true for Negative-rated funds as only 12 such funds were in the launch. Today there are 67 Negative-rated funds.
Comparing all rated funds versus their appropriate category benchmark--such as the Russell 2000 Growth for small-cap growth funds--we see that 54% of Gold funds beat their benchmark through Nov. 15, 2012, while 55% of Silver beat the category benchmark, 53% of Bronze funds beat the category benchmark, 47% of Neutral funds beat an appropriate category benchmark, and 58% of Negative-rated funds beat the secondary benchmark.
Comparing funds with the primary asset-class benchmark--the S&P 500 for U.S. stocks, MSCI EAFE Index for foreign equity, Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond for taxable bonds, and the Barclays Municipal Index for munis--we see 50% of Gold-rated funds beat the primary benchmark, while 63% of Silver beat the benchmark, 47% of Bronze-rated funds beat the primary benchmark, 45% of Neutral-rated funds beat the benchmark, and 17% of Negative-rated funds beat the benchmark.
- source: Morningstar Analysts
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.