In the world of investing, size is often mistaken for quality. Many investors assume that large fund managers—those overseeing billions or even trillions of dollars—must automatically be better than smaller ones. After all, they have more resources, bigger teams, and long track records. While size can offer certain advantages, it does not guarantee superior performance.
In reality, bigger fund managers are not necessarily better. In some cases, size can even become a disadvantage. Understanding why this is true can help investors make more informed decisions and avoid common misconceptions.
Why Bigger Often Feels Safer
The appeal of large fund managers is easy to understand.
Brand Recognition and Trust
Well-known fund managers benefit from strong brand names. Familiarity creates trust, especially for investors who prefer stability over uncertainty.
Perceived Expertise
Large firms employ experienced analysts, economists, and portfolio managers. This creates the impression that bigger teams always lead to better decisions.
Long Track Records
Many large fund managers have decades of history, which can be comforting for investors seeking reliability.
While these factors can matter, they do not tell the full story.
Size Can Limit Flexibility
One of the biggest challenges large fund managers face is limited flexibility.
Moving Large Amounts of Capital Is Difficult
When managing massive portfolios, even small changes require significant transactions. Buying or selling positions can take time and may affect market prices.
Fewer Opportunities Available
Smaller fund managers can invest in niche opportunities or less-liquid assets. Large managers often cannot, simply because the position would be too small to matter or too hard to exit.
Flexibility is often an advantage in changing market conditions.
Performance Does Not Scale Linearly
Investment strategies that work well with smaller amounts of capital do not always scale effectively.
Diminishing Returns
As assets under management grow, it becomes harder to generate excess returns without increasing risk.
Index-Like Behavior
Some large active funds begin to resemble the market index because they must spread capital across many holdings. This can reduce the potential for outperformance.
In such cases, investors may pay active management fees for results that closely track the market.
Bureaucracy Can Slow Decision-Making
Large organizations often come with complex structures.
Multiple Layers of Approval
Decisions in big firms may require approval from committees or senior management. This can slow responses to fast-moving market changes.
Risk Aversion
Large fund managers often prioritize capital preservation and reputation. This can lead to conservative decisions that limit upside potential.
Smaller managers may act more decisively and adapt faster.
Talent Is Not Exclusive to Big Firms
Another common myth is that the best talent only works at large fund managers.
Skilled Professionals Exist Everywhere
Many highly skilled managers choose smaller firms for:
- Greater independence
- Alignment with personal investment philosophy
- Better incentives
Incentives Matter
In smaller firms, managers often have personal capital invested alongside clients. This alignment can encourage disciplined decision-making.
Talent is widely distributed; it is not limited to size.
Marketing vs. Actual Results
Large fund managers have significant marketing power.
Visibility Does Not Equal Performance
Strong marketing can attract assets regardless of recent performance. Investor inflows may reflect brand strength rather than investment skill.
Performance Chasing Risk
Funds that grow rapidly after strong performance may struggle to repeat those results at a larger scale.
Investors should separate reputation from measurable outcomes.
The Impact of Fees
Fees play a critical role in long-term returns.
Active Fees and Net Performance
Large fund managers may charge fees that reduce net returns, especially if performance closely tracks the index.
Cost Efficiency Matters
Lower-cost options can outperform higher-fee funds over time, even if gross performance appears similar.
Bigger does not always mean more cost-effective.
Risk Management vs. Opportunity Cost
Large fund managers often emphasize risk management, which is important—but it comes with trade-offs.
Avoiding Mistakes vs. Missing Opportunities
Highly structured risk controls can prevent major losses, but they can also limit exposure to emerging opportunities.
Career Risk
In large organizations, managers may prioritize avoiding mistakes over making bold decisions. This behavior can reduce long-term performance potential.
Smaller Funds and Focused Strategies
Smaller fund managers often specialize.
Concentrated Portfolios
With fewer assets to manage, smaller funds can maintain focused portfolios and pursue high-conviction ideas.
Clear Investment Philosophy
Many smaller managers are built around a specific strategy or belief, rather than broad market exposure.
Focus can be a strength when executed responsibly.
Past Performance and Survivorship Bias
Looking only at large, surviving funds can be misleading.
Survivorship Bias Explained
Many smaller or unsuccessful funds disappear over time, leaving only the largest names visible. This can distort perceptions of success.
Longevity Does Not Equal Superiority
Survival may reflect stability, not necessarily consistent outperformance.
Understanding this bias helps set realistic expectations.
Investor Behavior and Comfort
Investor psychology plays a role in fund selection.
Emotional Comfort
Large fund managers often feel safer, especially during volatile markets.
Familiarity Bias
Investors tend to trust what they recognize, even if alternatives offer better risk-adjusted returns.
Comfort is understandable, but it should not replace analysis.
Diversification Beyond Manager Size
Relying solely on large fund managers can limit diversification.
Manager Diversification
Diversifying across different manager sizes, styles, and philosophies can reduce risk.
Strategy Diversification
Combining passive, active, large, and small managers may provide balance.
Size should be one factor, not the deciding one.
When Bigger Can Be Better
It is important to be fair—size can offer advantages in some cases.
Operational Stability
Large firms often have strong compliance, infrastructure, and risk systems.
Access to Markets
Some asset classes require scale, such as certain bond or institutional strategies.
The key is understanding where size helps and where it hinders.
Questions Investors Should Ask
Instead of focusing on size alone, investors should ask:
- What is the fund’s investment strategy?
- How consistent is performance over time?
- Are fees reasonable relative to results?
- How does the manager handle risk?
- Is the strategy scalable?
These questions provide better insight than assets under management.
Long-Term Perspective Matters
Investment success is rarely about choosing the biggest name.
Discipline Over Branding
Disciplined strategies tend to outperform branding in the long run.
Process Over Popularity
Understanding how decisions are made is more important than who is making them.
Final Thoughts
Bigger fund managers are not necessarily better. While size can bring resources, stability, and recognition, it can also reduce flexibility, limit opportunities, and dilute performance. Smaller managers may offer focus, agility, and stronger alignment with investors, though they come with their own risks.
The most important lesson for investors is this: judge fund managers by their process, discipline, and results—not by their size alone. A thoughtful, balanced approach leads to better long-term decisions than simply following the biggest name in the room.
Summary:
When it comes to selecting top-performing investment funds and unit trusts the bigger brand is not necessarily better. Choosing the wrong fund by investing with big brand fund managers could cost investors dearly.
Keywords:
fund manager, investing
Article Body:
When it comes to selecting top-performing investment funds and unit trusts the bigger brand is not necessarily better. Choosing the wrong fund by investing with big brand fund managers could cost investors dearly.
Many investors are deluded into thinking that buying from a big brand fund manager will in some way protect them against selecting a poorly performing fund. The big brand managers offer many great funds, but they’re also marketing plenty of duds. Just because one fund is a top performer, doesn’t mean it applies across that fund manager’s range. Investors need to look beyond the brand and more closely at the underlying fund.
Over recent years, the UK market has seen a rise in popularity for boutique investment houses, and, given their track record of consistent positive performance, it’s hardly surprising. There are many ways to classify a boutique, but generally speaking, boutique fund managers are independently-owned or employee-owned, and relatively small in size. They often invest in specialist areas of expertise, rather than attempt to be all things to all men and run funds across each and every sector.
Recently, boutiques have even been stepping on large firms’ toes when it comes to servicing retail clients. Last year boutiques outshone their larger counterparts in the UK, taking the top four places in the �best overall fund manager rankings’. Big brands such as UBS and Standard Life slipped down the rankings, while boutiques Rathbone, Neptune, Dalton and Artemis took the top spots.
The last quarter of 2006 was hair-raising for investors, as millions were wiped off share prices and markets. However, the boutique fund management houses continued to outperform their larger rivals.
The disappointing reality for most private investors is that neither they, nor in some cases their financial advisers, would have heard of some of these relatively unknown smaller investment houses, and are therefore missing out on great investment opportunities.
The same caution applied to big brands should also be applied to big names – or the so called �star fund managers’. Is it wise to stake your money on the reputation of an individual big-name fund manager when there’s no guarantee they will stick around?
Research shows that just 15% of managers have run the same fund for over six years, 43% for four to six years, and 39% for two to four years. Similarly, 80% of fund managers at the top 50 UK fund providers have left their funds in the last three years. Around 60% of managers move because of offers from competitors.
In investment terms, familiarity doesn’t always necessarily breed content. Investors should monitor their investments very closely and ensure that they have the tools to hand to spot strong investment opportunities that would otherwise pass them by.
Leave a Reply