Analyst Price Targets Gone Wrong

So I was recently browsing a report by FactSet which aggregates analyst price target data for stocks. So for fun, I went back to last year's report to see what was said and how things turned out.....Results? Ugly.

First, I looked at their interesting chart which shows the top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 whose price at the start of 2015 was most significantly below its aggregate analyst price target.

The average of these 10 stocks were 45.7% below their price targets. Wow, sounds awesome, why not just make a portfolio of these 10 stocks and roll with it...+47.5% returns here we come! Well, here is how that would have turned out.

No, I did not reverse the signs....they actually were THAT bad! They had the average % return correct.....JUST IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!! Remember folks....the S&P 500 returned +1.4% in 2015, if you equal weighted all 500 stocks it still would have been only -2.2%. It's quite a feat to do this badly.

How about the stocks whose aggregate price targets were most BELOW their starting price in 2015? The stocks they thought would do worst?

Here, on average, they expected these stocks to decline -12.1%. And the results?

Well atleast the average fall was close but what I hope your noticing is how much BETTER these did then those expected to perform best. Not only that but this group actually included 4 stocks that were positive and 6 stocks that performed better than the equal weighted S&P 500.

Lastly, how about just a bottom up look at expected sector returns? What were they saying in 2015?

Ok, so they were expecting 6.8% for the S&P and it returned 1.4% but what about if you want to use this to overweight some sectors? How about if you just equal weight the top 5 sectors (Energy, Materials, Industrials, Telecom & Health Care)? That would give you an expected return of 10.0%. Results?

Terrible, enough said.

  

Performance of Morningstar's New Analyst Ratings For Mutual Funds in 2012

Last year I wrote about Morningstar's new analyst ratings for mutual funds (here as well). These are different from their Star Ratings in the fact that these are meant to be "forward looking". From Morningstar (bold added by me)

"The Analyst Rating is based on the analyst's conviction in the fund's ability to outperform its peer group and/or relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over the long term. If a fund receives a positive rating of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, it means Morningstar analysts think highly of the fund and expect it to outperform over a full market cycle of at least five years."

Now it should be clear that these ratings are longer-term in nature so take the following breakdown with a grain of salt but I said I would follow-up on these so I am.

First lets start with a review of what the distribution of Morningstar's Analyst Ratings looked like at the start of 2012

While the distribution of ratings has gotten a little better it remains a mystery why Morningstar has an allergic reaction to assigning negative ratings. As of the start of 2013 they have now rated 1069 funds but only 52 (or less then 5%) have negative ratings. Although the neutral ratings have increased to 28%, Bronze to 25%, Silver is down to 24% and Gold down to about 18%.

Without further ado, below is how the rated funds performed in 2012. These only include funds rated at the start of 2012.

Not much really stands out after the first year. While their was a slight positive result for Gold and Silver rated funds, Neutral rated funds did even better. As for Bronze and Negative rated funds, outperformance was pretty much a coin flip.

Below is the Average Rank for each, as you can see Neutral rated funds performed the best and Negatively rated funds performed the worst.

Take this for what it's worth, which at this point is not much because full market cycles are indeed a better measuring stick. For instance, in 1999 and 2006/2007 a lot of bad managers did good thinking the unsustainable was in fact sustainable while a lot of good managers did bad as they realized irrationality when they saw it. However, this is at least a starting point for looking at the performance of these Analyst Ratings.

Morningstar Continues Rollout of Analyst Mutual Fund Ratings, Only 7% Negative.

Morningstar has been rolling out it's new "forward looking" analyst ratings for mutual funds since last November as I have touched on before. The number of funds rated has gone from 349 funds to 924 as of the end of the 2nd quarter (You can see the full list as of 6/30/12 here). While it has been good to see the distribution of ratings even out somewhat, Morningstar still appears to have an allergic reaction to rating funds "negative" as can be seen below.

As a reminder about the meaning of the ratings, per Morningstar....

"The Analyst Rating is based on the analyst's conviction in the fund's ability to outperform its peer group and/or relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over the long term. If a fund receives a positive rating of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, it means Morningstar analysts think highly of the fund and expect it to outperform over a full market cycle of at least five years."

After reading that you might assume that anything rated gold, silver or bronze is a fund Morningstar analysts think will provide risk-adjusted outperformance compared to a relevant benchmark over a full market cycle of atleast 5 years. Apparently not......as can be seen by the majority of ratings given to 29 index funds. Obviously you could not expect an index fund to outperform it's relevant benchmark....after all, index funds are designed to REPLICATE their relevant benchmark. So they should generally perform in line with the benchmark, minus fees. The best an index fund can hope to do is meet Morningstar's definition of neutral "Fund that isn’t likely to deliver standout returns, but also isn’t likely to significantly underperform".

Despite the fact that by their very nature index funds can't be expected to outperform their relevant benchmark, of the 29 index funds Morningstar rated, the ratings breakdown as follows: 14 Gold, 9 Silver, 3 Bronze, 2 Neutral, 1 Negative. It is true that the majority of actively managed mutual funds underperform their benchmarks as can be seen below (you can see more in S&P's Indicies vs Active Report). However, the reality is index funds always underperform their benchmarks! (unless a sampling error works in their favor).

However, what Morningstar should take away from the above info is not that index funds deserve metal ratings, what they should take away is that they need to be much more stingy in giving away Gold, Silver & Bronze....because the majority of mutual funds, ACTIVE & PASSIVE, underperform their benchmarks! If everyone knew that metal ratings only meant they would perform like their benchmark I doubt anyone would care for that information, yet Morningstar thinks that is exactly what they should do.

Morningstar Ramps Up Analyst Ratings for Mutual Funds. Positive Bias Continues.

UPDATE: 8/1/12 - You can see updated ratings as of 6/30/12 here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morningstar continues to roll-out its new 'forward-looking' analyst ratings for mutual funds. When I wrote about these ratings in November after their initial launch they had ratings for 349 funds. They have increased that to 410 (as of 12/31/2011). You can download the complete listing here.

As a refresher here is what Morningstar says about it's new rating system

"Unlike the backward-looking Morningstar Rating™ (often referred to as the "star rating"), which assigns 1 to 5 stars based on a fund's past risk- and load-adjusted returns versus category peers, the Analyst Rating is the summary expression of Morningstar's forward-looking analysis of a fund. Morningstar analysts assign the ratings on a five-tier scale with three positive ratings of Gold, Silver, and Bronze, a Neutral rating, and a Negative rating.

The Analyst Rating is based on the analyst's conviction in the fund's ability to outperform its peer group and/or relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over the long term. If a fund receives a positive rating of Gold, Silver, or Bronze, it means Morningstar analysts think highly of the fund and expect it to outperform over a full market cycle of at least five years."

So far it appears that this system is going to suffer from the same problems which plague stock ratings.....a lack of negative ratings. Despite the fact that the majority of mutual funds under-perform their benchmarks, only 4% of Morningstar's 410 analyst ratings are "negative".

Morningstar has still not clarified how 21 index funds have managed to receive "metal" ratings. After all, how does an index fund outperform it's benchmark? By their own definitions, the best an index fund should be rated is "neutral". Yet every index fund they have rated up to this point has received a rating higher than Neutral (with the majority getting 'gold' ratings).

Below is a chart breaking down fund attributes by each rating

Nothing too shocking here. The average fund receiving their highest "forward looking" grade also has a higher backward looking star rating. Fund expenses are lower and manger tenure is longer. The most questionable aspect comes into play regarding fund size. Many funds that performed well in the past did not necessarily do so with large asset bases, the assets usually came after the performance. With "gold" rated funds having such large asset bases on average, will they be able to outperform going forward?

I will be checking up on Morningstar's roll-out of their new ratings from time to time and will definitely check up again this time next year to see how this batch of ratings has performed.

Are Morningstar Mutual Fund Analysts Taking Happy Pills? Ratings Breakdown.

UPDATE: 8/1/12 - You can see updated ratings as of 6/30/12 here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Morningstar has released new "Analyst Ratings" on 349 US based mutual funds as of 11/15/11. According to Morningstar

"The new scale runs from Gold, Silver, and Bronze on the positive end to Neutral and Negative. Expressed as medals, the top three tiers are reserved for funds our analyst team thinks have sustainable advantages that position them well versus peers and a relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over the long haul (at least the next five years)"

Morningstar considers Gold, Silver and Bronze to be positive analyst ratings. And obviously the other two are self explanatory. The exact definitions of each are below

Gold: Best-of-breed fund that distinguishes itself across the five pillars and has garnered the analysts’ highest level of conviction;  

Silver: Fund with notable advantages across several, but perhaps not all, of the five pillars—strengths that give the analysts a high level of conviction;

Bronze: Fund with advantages that outweigh any disadvantages across the five pillars, and sufficient level of analyst conviction to warrant a positive rating; 

Neutral: Fund that isn’t likely to deliver standout returns, but also isn’t likely to significantly underperform; and 

Negative: Fund that has at least one flaw likely to significantly hamper future performance, and is considered an inferior offering to its peers.

However, one has to question the way these ratings have been given out for this first batch of 349 funds. 

These must be the parents of Generation Z giving out these ratings because apparently they think you deserve a metal just for showing up. Of the first 349 funds rated, a full 311 or 89% received a "positive" rating deserving of a "metal". Another 30 they are indifferent about and they only have a negative view on 8 or about 2%. 

However, many studies have shown that the majority of actively managed mutual funds actually underperform their benchmarks. Below is a chart from Mclean Heuristics using data from Standard and Poor's Indices verses Active Funds Scorecard.

Clearly that is a sad showing for active managers as a whole. But lets get one thing clear.....I am NOT a supporter of index investing. In fact, I believe index investing (particularly using cap-weighted indexes) only adds to market inefficiency (but that's a rant for another day). 

However, what that chart does show is that if Morningstar was properly distributing it's ratings, it would likely be an inverted version of what they put out. With the majority falling in the "negative" category and the least falling in the "gold" category.

We'll see how the distribution of ratings turns out as Morningstar rolls out more over the next year, but so far it looks to be just as ridiculous as stock ratings given out by the industry. Analysts as a whole in the financial industry are not in short supply of happy pills. After all, Happy Sells!

Updated: 11/17/11 10:20pm ET