In This List

SPIVA® U.S. Year-End 2019

SPIVA® South Africa Year-End 2019

Scorecard SPIVA® da América Latina - Fechamento de 2019

SPIVA® Latin America Scorecard Year-End 2019

Scorecard SPIVA® para América Latina - Cierre de 2019

SPIVA® U.S. Year-End 2019

Contributor Image
Berlinda Liu

Director, Global Research & Design


2019 was a remarkable year for equity markets in the U.S. and around the world. Boosted by an accommodative Fed policy, low unemployment, low inflation, and continued global growth, risk assets across the board did well—all of the benchmarks tracked in the SPIVA U.S. Scorecard had positive returns, with the S&P 500® Value leading the pack at 31.9%.

The Information Technology-heavy and more internationally diversified companies of the S&P 500 pushed the index to its second-highest annual return (31.5%) since 2001 and fourth-highest return in 30 years, rising in 10 of the 12 months. The S&P MidCap 400® (26.2%) and the S&P SmallCap 600® (22.8%) also had strong years.

While these tailwinds helped U.S. equity managers post excellent absolute returns, none of them translated into active managers’ superior performance compared with their benchmarks. For example, 70% of domestic equity funds lagged the S&P Composite 1500® during the one-year period ending Dec. 31, 2019, making for the fourth-worst performance since 2001.

SPIVA U.S. Year-End 2019 Exhibit 1

Large-cap funds made it a clean sweep for the decade—for the 10th consecutive one-year period, the majority (71%) underperformed the S&P 500. Their consistency in failing to outperform when the Fed was on hold (2010-2015), raising interest rates (2015-2018), and cutting rates (2019) deserves special note, with 89% of large-cap funds underperforming the S&P 500 over the past decade.

Mid-cap funds could be excused for some swagger when presenting to investment committees: 68% of mid-cap funds beat the S&P MidCap 400 in 2019, the third consecutive year the majority did so. Similarly, 62% of small-cap funds beat the S&P SmallCap 600. However, the awkward long-term statistic remains that 84% of mid-cap funds and 89% of small-cap funds underperformed over the past 10 years.

The perennial growth versus value debate continues, with the continued pain for value funds particularly pronounced in 2019 and visible across all three market cap segments. A staggering 97% of large-cap value funds lagged the S&P 500 Value in 2019, joined by 65% and 80% of their mid- and small-cap peers underperforming their value benchmarks, respectively. The situation was neatly reversed on the growth side, however, with 67%, 91%, and 86% outperforming the S&P 500 Growth, S&P MidCap 400 Growth, and S&P SmallCap 600 Growth, respectively.

There was little to debate over the full decade though, with scant difference between growth and value funds’ likelihood of underperforming their benchmarks: large cap (90%, 92%), mid cap (78%, 88%), and small cap (82%, 97%) all delivered painful results.

Global equities followed the U.S., with 46 of the 50 countries in the S&P Global BMI up on the year (in USD terms). Emerging market funds had a better go of it, with 64% beating the S&P/IFCI Composite. Only about 40% of global, international, and international small-cap funds beat the S&P Global 1200, S&P International 700, and S&P Developed Ex-U.S. SmallCap, respectively.

Government funds struggled across tenors, with 98%, 69%, and 73% underperforming in the long, intermediate, and short-term buckets, respectively. Government bond funds in general had a miserable decade, as an incredible 99% of long bond funds failed to clear the bar over the past 10 years, along with 80% and 70% of intermediate and short-end bond funds, respectively.

Investment-grade funds had split results: while a mere 5% of long-dated funds outperformed, a healthy 68% and 63% of intermediate- and short-term funds managed to do so, respectively. High-yield funds had little reason to celebrate, with 65% falling short. These results matched their longer-term track records: more than 97% of high yield and investment-grade long funds fell short of their benchmark over the decade, but roughly half of the investment-grade intermediate and short- term funds did outperform.

Elsewhere, solid majorities of municipal debt funds and global income funds outperformed, while MBS and loan participation funds disappointed in 2019.

SPIVA’s report accounting for survivorship bias continues to be a valuable cautionary tale. Fund liquidation numbers across segments regularly reached into the 60% range over a 15-year horizon. In line with 2018, roughly 5% of domestic equity funds disappeared in 2019, with ~40% having been confined to the history books over the past decade. International equity funds posted similar numbers for 2019 and the 2010s, but only ~30% of funds in most fixed income categories were merged or liquidated over the decade.


SPIVA® South Africa Year-End 2019

Contributor Image
Andrew Innes

Head of EMEA, Global Research & Design

S&P Dow Jones Indices has been the de facto scorekeeper of the ongoing active versus passive debate since the first publication of the S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) U.S. Scorecard in 2002. The SPIVA South Africa Scorecard measures the performance of actively managed, South African equity and fixed income funds denominated in South African rands (ZAR) against their respective benchmark indices over one-, three-, and five-year investment horizons.


South African Equities

Over 68% of South African active equity funds underperformed the S&P South Africa 50 over the one-year period. The same equity funds fared better when compared to the broader benchmark; 56% outperformed the S&P South Africa Domestic Shareholder Weighted (DSW) Capped Index in 2019.

The difference in fund performance between the two aforementioned benchmarks reflected the strength of South African large-cap stocks in relation to mid and small caps. The large-cap benchmark, the S&P South Africa 50, was up 10.4% in 2019. It outperformed the S&P South Africa DSW Capped Index by over 3% annualized over each of the one-, three-, and five-year periods, demonstrating the tendency of the largest 50 stocks to outperform in recent years.

Local market gains in 2019 were generally buoyed by the global rally following the late 2018 selloff and were not widely viewed as a reflection of economic strength. In fact, the IMF concluded in November 2019 that South Africa faced persistently weak economic growth, deteriorating debt, and major difficulties in its state-owned enterprises.

S&P DJI’s series of factor, smart beta, and sector indices within South Africa had a disperse range of outcomes in 2019. Momentum strategies led the field in factors, with the S&P Momentum South Africa up 28.5% over the calendar year. The S&P Enhanced Value South Africa Composite Index trailed behind and was down 3.8% over the same period. The S&P South Africa DSW Materials Index posted a strong return of 32.5%, while the S&P South Africa DSW Information Technology Index lost ground and fell 10.6%. Interestingly, the S&P South Africa DSW Capped Carbon Efficient Index outperformed its benchmark by 2.6% in the year that saw the South African government introduce the Carbon Tax Act.

Global Equities

South African funds with a global portfolio saw higher returns than those with a domestic focus when measured on an asset-weighted basis—the Global Equity category returned 21.8% for the one-year period. This growth was more than matched by the S&P Global 1200 in local ZAR, with 73% of funds in this category unable to beat it in the year. On an asset-weighted basis, these funds underperformed the global benchmark by 3% in 2019. Similarly, over a three- and five-year period, the annualized asset-weighted returns were below that of the benchmark, by 3% and 2.5%, respectively.

Fixed Income

Over 73% of funds in the Diversified/Aggregate Bond category were unable to surpass the one-year performance of the S&P South Africa Sovereign Bond 1+ Year Index, which posted gains of over 10% in 2019. This was higher than the benchmark’s annualized five-year return of 7.7%. Over both time periods, the returns from the S&P South Africa Sovereign Bond 1+ Year Index outstripped those from the broad local equity index (S&P South Africa DSW Capped Index).

In the Short-Term Bond funds category, 92% of managers were able to outperform the South Africa Short Term Fixed Interest (STeFI) Composite. The ability of these managers to outmaneuver the benchmark persisted across the three- and five-year periods.


Scorecard SPIVA® da América Latina - Fechamento de 2019


O scorecard SPIVA da América Latina compara o desempenho de fundos mútuos de gestão ativa no Brasil, Chile e México com os seus benchmarks em horizontes temporais de um, três, cinco e dez anos.

A performance dos gestores ativos contra os seus índices de referência ou benchmarks teve discrepâncias entre os países. Este relatório demonstra que os gestores ativos no Brasil, especialmente no segmento Large cap, estiveram bem preparados para a forte recuperação do mercado brasileiro de valores. Entretanto, 2019 foi difícil para os gestores no México e no Chile, apesar das diferentes condições de mercado observadas em ambos os países. O bechmark do México ganhou do mercado enquanto o benchmark chileno encerrou o ano com perdas.


  • O ano de 2019 foi o quarto consecutivo com retornos de dois dígitos para o mercado brasileiro de valores. O S&P Brazil BMI subiu 16,10% na segunda metade do ano e 35,09% no ano completo. As empresas Mid cap e Small cap (medidas pelo S&P Brazil MidSmallCap) lideraram os resultados com ganhos de 55,21%, enquanto as companhias Large cap (medidas pelo S&P Brazil LargeCap) tiveram um retorno de 26,35%.
  • A inflação se manteve controlada ao longo de 2019, mas aumentou em dezembro, fechando o ano em 4,31%. Além disso, as expectativas de crescimento diminuíram em julho de 1,6% para 0,8%, e a previsão foi modificada para 1,1% em 19 de dezembro.1 Durante a segunda metade do ano, o Conselho Monetário Nacional reduziu a taxa referencial quatro vezes, gerando uma queda total da taxa de 200 pontos-base. A entidade também reduziu a taxa SELIC de 6,00% para 4,50%. Como resultado, os títulos de dívida corporativa (medidos pelo Anbima Debentures Index) se valorizaram 2,5% enquanto os títulos de dívida pública (medidos pelo Ambima Market Index) subiram 4,6% na segunda metade do ano. Para o ano completo, os títulos de dívida corporativa subiram 8,6% enquanto o títulos de dívida pública se valorizaram 12,8%.
  • A maioria dos gestores em quatro das cinco categorias perdeu para o seu benchmark no período de um ano (ver relatório 1). Contudo, 2019 foi um bom ano para os gestores de fundos Large cap, pois 88,57% ganharam do seu benchmark no horizonte de um ano e 66,67% conseguiram ganhar no horizonte de três anos. Os gestores ativos das outras categorias não se deram bem contra os seus benchmarks nos períodos de um, cinco e dez anos.
  • No horizonte de dez anos, os fundos de maior tamanho tiveram melhores resultados do que os fundos mais pequenos, com exceção da categoria de títulos de dívida pública, ao comparar o desempenho médio ponderado equitativamente (ver relatório 3) com o desempenho médio ponderado por ativos (ver relatório 4).


  • O mercado chileno de valores apresentou retornos negativos por segundo ano consecutivo, gerando -8,83% no período de doze meses encerrado em dezembro de 2019, segundo a medição do S&P Chile BMI. A volatilidade afetou os mercados do país na segunda metade do ano, principalmente após a crise social que começou em 18 de outubro.
  • A maioria (80%) dos gestores ativos perdeu para o S&P Chile BMI no período de um ano. A mediana do desempenho inferior ao benchmark foi de 2,91% (ver relatório 5).
  • A performance dos fundos piorou em horizontes temporais mais longos, uma vez que 98% e 100% dos fundos perderam para o benchmark durante os períodos de cinco e dez anos, respectivamente. Os fundos no Chile tiveram baixas taxas de sobrevivência: 56% e 50% dos fundos foram fusionados ou liquidados nos períodos de cinco e dez anos.
  • Em todos os horizontes temporais, os fundos mais pequenos se deram relativamente melhor do que os fundos de maior tamanho ao comparar o desempenho médio ponderado equitativamente (ver relatório 3) com o desempenho ponderado por ativos (ver relatório 4).


  • Levando em conta que os efeitos do enfraquecimento do crescimento interno foram compensados pela diminuição da tensão comercial entre os EUA e a China, o mercado mexicano de valores encerrou o segundo semestre de 2019 de forma positiva com uma alta de 2,2% do S&P/BMV IRT. Durante o período de doze meses, o índice subiu 7,9%, que é um resultado notável em comparação com o retorno de -13,62% nos doze meses de 2018.
  • Mais de 70% dos gestores ativos perderam para o S&P/BMV IRT em todos os períodos estudados. A maioria dos gestores ativos não conseguiu antecipar o mercado em alta e repetir o seu sucesso relativo observado no relatório de fechamento de 2018. Durante o período de doze meses encerrado em dezembro de 2019, 71% dos fundos perderam para o benchmark com uma mediana de desempenho inferior de 3,11%. Quanto maior foi o horizonte temporal, pior foi a performance dos gestores desta categoria, já que 87% dos fundos perderam para o benchmark no período de 10 anos com uma mediana de desempenho inferior de 2,10%.
  • O México teve a maior taxa de sobrevivência de fundos na América Latina para a maioria dos períodos estudados, com exceção do horizonte temporal de dez anos. No período de doze meses, a taxa de sobrevivência diminuiu de 100% no relatório do primeiro semestre de 2019 para 98% no fechamento do ano. As taxas de sobrevivência de três e cinco anos estiveram acima de 96% e 88%, respectivamente.


SPIVA® Latin America Scorecard Year-End 2019

Contributor Image
María Sánchez

Associate Director, Global Research & Design

The S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) Latin America Scorecard compares the performance of actively managed mutual funds in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico to their benchmarks over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year time horizons.

Active managers’ performance relative to their benchmark indices showed discrepancies across individual countries. The report shows that active managers in Brazil, especially in the large-cap segment, were well prepared for the strong rally in the Brazilian equities market. Meanwhile, 2019 proved challenging for both Mexican and Chilean equity managers, despite the different market conditions seen in the two countries: Mexico’s benchmark outperformed while Chile's benchmark ended the year down.


  • 2019 was the fourth consecutive year of double-digit returns in the Brazilian equity market, with the S&P Brazil BMI rising 16.10% during the second half of the year and 35.09% for the full year. Mid- and small-cap companies (as measured by the S&P Brazil MidSmallCap) led the way, up 55.21%, while large-cap companies (as measured by the S&P Brazil LargeCap) returned 26.35%.
  • Inflation was controlled throughout 2019 but rose in December, closing the year at 4.31%. Furthermore, growth expectations for the year shifted lower in July 2019, from 1.6% to 0.8%, and the forecast was revised to 1.1% on Dec. 19, 2019.1 During the second half of the year, the National Monetary Council reduced the reference rate on four different occasions, decreasing the rate by a total of 200 bps, and the institution cut the monetary policy interest rate, SELIC, from 6.00% to 4.50%. As a result, corporate bonds were up 2.5% (as measured by Anbima Debentures Index) and government bonds were up 4.6% (as measured by Anbima Market Index) over the second half of the year. For all of 2019, corporates gained 8.6%, while government bonds were up 12.8%.
  • The one-year period saw most active fund managers underperforming their benchmarks in four of the five categories (see Report 1). However, it was a good year for Brazil Large-Cap Fund managers, with 88.57% beating the benchmark over the one-year horizon and 66.67% over the three-year horizon. Active managers from the other categories fared poorly relative to their respective benchmarks over the 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods.
  • Over the 10-year horizon, larger funds performed better than smaller funds, except in the Brazil Government Bond Funds category, when comparing performance on an equal-weighted (Report 3) versus asset-weighted basis.


  • The Chilean equity market posted negative returns for the second consecutive year, returning -8.83% over the 12-month period ending in December 2019, as measured by the S&P Chile BMI. Volatility affected the country's markets in the second half of the year, mainly after the social outbreak of Oct. 18, 2019.
  • The majority (80%) of active equity fund managers underperformed the S&P Chile BMI over the one-year period, with the median fund underperforming the benchmark by 2.91%.
  • Fund performance worsened over longer time horizons, as 98% and 100% of funds underperformed the benchmark over the 5- and 10-year periods, respectively. Funds in Chile posted poor survival rates—56% and 50% of funds were merged or liquidated over the 5- and 10-year periods, respectively, as of December 2019.
  • Smaller funds performed relatively better than larger funds in all time horizons when comparing average fund performance on an equal-weighted versus asset-weighted basis.


  • With the effects of weakened domestic economic growth outweighed by lessened commercial tension between the U.S. and China, the Mexican equity market ended the second half of 2019 on a positive note, with the S&P/BMV IRT increasing 2.2%; for 12-month period, the index was up 7.9%, a remarkable result compared with 2018's 12-month return of -13.62%.
  • More than 70% of active managers underperformed the S&P/BMV IRT over all periods observed. The majority of active managers were unable to anticipate the up market and repeat their relative success seen in the year-end 2018 report. Over the 12-month period ending in December 2019, 71% of funds underperformed the benchmark, with a median underperformance of 3.11%. The longer the time horizon, the worse managers in this category fared: over the 10-year period, 87% of funds underperformed the benchmark, with a median underperformance of 2.10%.
  • Mexico saw the highest survival rate for equity funds in Latin America for most of the observed periods, with exception of the 10-year horizon. Over the 12-month period, the survival rate was reduced by 2% from the 100% observed in the mid-year 2019 report, finalizing the year at 98%. The three- and five-year survival rates were above 96% and 88%, respectively.


Scorecard SPIVA® para América Latina - Cierre de 2019


El scorecard SPIVA para América Latina compara el rendimiento de fondos de gestión activa en Brasil, Chile y México con sus índices de referencia en horizontes de inversión de uno, tres, cinco y diez años.

El desempeño de los gestores activos en comparación con sus índices de referencia o benchmarks mostró discrepancias en los países analizados. Este informe muestra que los gestores activos en Brasil, especialmente en el segmento de alta capitalización, estuvieron bien preparados para el fuerte repunte del mercado brasileño de valores. Mientras tanto, 2019 presentó desafíos tanto para los gestores mexicanos como chilenos, a pesar de las diferentes condiciones de mercado observadas en ambos países: el índice de referencia de México superó al mercado, mientras que el benchmark de Chile cerró el año con pérdidas.


  • El 2019 fue el cuarto año consecutivo con rendimientos de doble dígito para el mercado de acciones brasileño. El S&P Brazil BMI subió 16.10% en el seguno semestre y 35.09% en el año completo. Las empresas de capitalización media y baja lideraron los resultados (medidas por el S&P Brazil MidSmallCap) con un alza de 55.21%, mientras que las empresas large cap presentaron un rendimiento de 26.35% (medidas por el S&P Brazil LargeCap).
  • La inflación se mantuvo controlada a lo largo de 2019, pero tuvo un alza en diciembre y cerró el año en 4.31%. Por otra parte, las expectativas de crecimiento para el año se redujeron de 1.6% a 0.8%, y la proyección fue modificada a 1.1% el 19 de diciembre.1 Durante el segundo semestre, el Consejo Monetario de Brasil redujo la tasa de interés referencial en cuatro ocasiones, generando una caída total de 200 puntos base. Asimismo, la entidad redujo la tasa de interés de política monetaria, SELIC, de 6.00% a 4.50%. Como resultado, los bonos corporativos tuvieron un alza de 2.5% (Anbima Debentures Index) y los bonos gubernamentales subieron 4.6% (Anbima Market Index) en la segunda mitad del año. Considerando el año completo, los bonos corporativos aumentaron 8.6%, mientras que los bonos gubernamentales subieron 12.8%.
  • En el período de un año, la mayoría de los gestores perdió frente a su benchmark en cuatro de las cinco categorías (ver tabla 1). Sin embargo, los gestores de fondos large cap tuvieron un buen año: 88.57% venció a su benchmark en el horizonte de un año y 66.67% lo hizo en el horizonte de tres años. Los gestores activos de otras categorías tuvieron un mal desempeño en comparación sus respectivos benchmarks en los períodos de uno, cinco y diez años.
  • Durante el hozironte de diez años, los fondos de mayor tamaño rendieron relativamente mejor que los fondos más pequeños, con excepción de la categoría de bonos gubernamentales, al comparar su desempeño promedio equiponderado (ver tabla 3) con su desempeño ponderado por activos (ver tabla 4).


  • El mercado de capitales en Chile presentó resultados negativos por segundo año consecutivo, generando rendimientos de -8.83% durante el período de doce meses culminado en diciembre de 2019, según la medición del S&P Chile BMI. La volatilidad afectó a los mercados del país en la segunda mitad del año, principalmente luego del estallido social del 18 de octubre.
  • La mayoría (80%) de los gestores activos tuvo un desempeño inferior al S&P Chile BMI durante el último período de un año. La mediana de desempeño inferior de los fondos frente a sus benchmarks fue de 2.91% (ver tabla 5).
  • El desempeño de los fondos empeoró en horizontes de más largo plazo: 98% y 100% perdió frente al benchmark durante los períodos de cinco y diez años, respectivamente. Los fondos en Chile presentaron bajas tasas de supervivencia. Durante los períodos de cinco y diez años, respectivamente, 56% y 50% de los fondos fueron fusionados o liquidados.
  • En todos los horizontes temporales, los fondos más pequeños rindieron relativamente mejor que los fondos de mayor tamaño al comparar su desempeño promedio equiponderado (ver tabla 3) con su desempeño ponderado por activos (ver tabla 4).


  • Considerando que los efectos de un crecimiento interno debilitado fueron compensados por la disminución de las tensiones comerciales entre Estados Unidos y China, el mercado mexicano de valores cerró la segunda mitad de 2019 en tono positivo con un alza de 2.2% del S&P/BMV IRT. En el período de doce meses, el índice mostró un alza de 7.9%, que es un resultado notable si se compara con el rendimiento de -13.62% durante los doce meses de 2018.
  • Más de 70% de los gestores activos perdió contra el S&P/BMV IRT en todos los períodos analizados. La mayoría no logró anticipar el mercado alcista y repetir su éxito relativo observado en el informe de cierre de 2018. Durante el período de doce meses finalizado en diciembre de 2019, 71% de los fondos perdió contra el benchmark con una mediana de desempeño inferior equivalente a 3.11%. Cuanto mayor fue el horizonte de tiempo, peores fueron los resultados de los gestores de esta categoría. En el período de diez años, 86% de los fondos perdió contra su benchmark con una mediana de desempeño inferior de 2.10%.
  • Los fondos mexicanos de renta variable presentaron la mayor tasa de supervivencia de América Latina en la mayoría de los períodos estudiados, excepto el horizonte de diez años.


Processing ...