Mutual Fund Return Indices For 15 Years

Yesterday’s post looked at some Total Return Indices’ Calendar Year Returns for the past 15 years. Today we are going to look at the same returns for the mutual fund averages as sourced from various sources (but all ultimately coming from Morningstar).

Mutual Fund Index Calendar Year Returns, 1994 – 2008

Morningstar Canadian Equity Mutual Fund Index (CAD) Morningstar US Equity Mutual Fund Index (CAD) Morningstar Global Equity Mutual Fund Index (CAD) Morningstar Emerging Markets Equity Mutual Fund Index (CAD) Morningstar Asia Pac-Rim ex Japan Equity Mutual Fund Index (CAD)
1994 -3.85% 3.07% 6.22% n/a -11.59%
1995 12.05% 24.46% 12.90% n/a 9.89%
1996 23.77% 17.90% 15.37% n/a 14.70%
1997 12.04% 30.92% 15.68% -6.35% -30.56%
1998 -2.67% 24.31% 10.40% -20.70% 0.74%
1999 24.62% 10.12% 20.18% 63.17% 48.31%
2000 8.98% -5.67% -4.90% -28.04% -23.40%
2001 -7.53% -11.59% -6.76% -0.91% -6.83%
2002 -12.71% -22.49% -18.05% -12.06% -17.80%
2003 22.70% 5.86% 10.55% 26.65% 14.34%
2004 13.43% 2.26% 6.47% 12.03% 6.64%
2005 22.33% 2.04% 5.84% 28.57% 15.98%
2006 16.79% 12.25% 18.01% 32.28% 35.46%
2007 8.45% -10.73% -6.69% 18.25% 16.61%
2008 -35.20% -29.30% -29.80% -45.90% -36.50%

Just a sea of numbers unless you can compare them side by side to the total return index benchmarks. Or create a new chart that just shows the *ahem* excess returns of mutual funds over the benchmark indices. If the number is negative, it indicates the mutual fund index average for that category underperformed it’s benchmark.

Excess Returns of Mutual Fund Indices over Benchmark Total Return Indices

Canadian Market US Market Foreign Developed Markets Foreign Emerging Markets Hong Kong China Market
1994 -3.67% -4.18% -7.73% n/a 13.15%
1995 -2.48% -9.44% 4.07% n/a -9.41%
1996 -4.58% -5.44% 7.85% n/a -18.79%
1997 -2.94% -8.20% 8.69% 1.42% -10.57%
1998 -1.09% -14.05% -10.07% -1.04% -3.74%
1999 -7.09% -3.56% 30.00% 6.88% -1.51%
2000 1.57% -0.06% 11.37% -0.10% -11.94%
2001 5.04% -5.17% 9.41% -4.59% 6.74%
2002 -0.27% 0.22% -32.57% -5.32% 0.63%
2003 -4.02% 0.61% -1.98% -1.17% 1.38%
2004 -1.05% -0.99% -4.88% -5.26% -9.75%
2005 -1.80% 0.42% -5.51% -1.75% 10.99%
2006 -0.47% -3.50% -8.18% -0.26% 5.16%
2007 -1.38% -0.19% -2.44% -0.28% -3.11%
2008 -2.20% -7.34% -0.12% -3.90% 3.05%

Before anyone asks, I am trying to determine if these number are adjusted for survivorship or not, and what fees were used in calculating the mutual fund index returns. Stay tuned as I’ll post that info when I find out. Notwithstanding, I think the data is interesting as it is.

Preet Banerjee
Preet Banerjee
...is an independent consultant to the financial services industry and a personal finance commentator. You can learn more about Preet at his personal website and you can click here to follow him on Twitter.
Related Posts
Showing 4 comments
  • Jordan

    Where do the numbers come from? Is there anywhere that historic data is available to individual investor’s for free?

  • Preet

    @Jordan – I know India invented the zero, but 1 through 9 I’m not too sure about. Wait, did you mean the index return numbers? :P

    They were sourced from various press releases from morningstar and from various financial websites (regulated ones) that show benchmark returns and the like. Unfortunately you have to hunt for the numbers, but they are out there – sometime it takes multiple sources to get the full data you are looking for. Data providers charge for access to their databases if you want the kind of access I know you are looking for…

  • Money Dave

    Preet,

    Great article. You really showed clearly how hard it is for mutual funds to beat their respective indices. That said, it seems that in many years the average of all the markets seems to balance out (mutual funds losing in one market, but gaining big in another). Could it be a case for “proper diversification”?

    Cheers,
    David

pingbacks / trackbacks