BLOG

Two investors can study the same rising market and reach opposite conclusions about what comes next. A new MIT working paper spanning 68 years finds that only the contrarian, sophisticated forecast has ever reliably predicted returns, while the bullishness of ordinary investors — the instinct behind chasing returns — predicts little or points the wrong way. Here is what seven decades of evidence say that feeling is really worth.

The managers running the biggest active funds picked stocks that beat the market in 2025 — and most still lagged their benchmark. A Morningstar do-nothing experiment and a body of academic research explain why active funds underperform even when the picking is good: skilled buying undone by poor selling, the hidden cost of trading, and the incentives that keep managers churning. The UK evidence points the same way.

A major Morningstar study of more than 5,800 funds has delivered a clear verdict on concentrated funds: they charge higher fees, deliver lower returns, and suffer deeper losses than their more diversified peers. The evidence suggests most investors would be better off on the main road.

New Morningstar research reveals the link between fund fees and performance has strengthened dramatically. A decade ago, some expensive funds generated enough alpha to partially justify their costs. Today, fees explain almost everything. The skill component has essentially vanished.

The so-called stock-picker’s market is a myth that fund managers use to justify their fees, whatever the market does. Decades of data show that even when conditions should favour active managers, most still underperform. The evidence is clear: simplicity, not stock-picking, wins in the long run.

Chasing last year’s top funds is seductive — and usually self-defeating. New evidence shows performance persistence is largely a mirage: most “winners” slip quickly, especially when markets get rough. Investors who keep costs low and own the market have far better odds of reaching their goals.