Guru Grades

Forbes Evaluates Ken Fisher's Stock Picking (Last Updated 9/3/08)

Several readers have inquired or commented in the past about Ken Fisher's stock picking ability. In response, here is the annual stock-picking performance of Ken Fisher in his regular Forbes.com column, as calculated by Forbes. These calculations assume: (1) equal initial investments in each stock pick when published; (2) 1% trading friction for each purchase; and, (3) matching benchmark investments in the S&P 500 index for each pick, with no trading friction. Because matching benchmark investments are spread across the year, the benchmark performance is not the same as the annual performance of the S&P 500 index. Using the data in the ten annual performance summary columns for 1998-2007, we find that:

The following chart summarizes the annual performance of Ken Fisher's public stock picks as calculated by Forbes for 1998-2007. The incomplete set of green columns shows absolute returns, with data for 1998, 1999 and 2003 missing. The other set of columns shows performance relative to matching benchmark investments in the S&P 500 index. Note that:

• On an absolute return basis, Ken Fisher's public picks outperform 90-day Treasury bills in three of seven years for which data is available (and probably six out of the ten years covered).
• On a relative return basis, Ken Fisher's public picks outperform matching S&P 500 index investments in eight of ten years. On average, he outperforms matching benchmark investments by about 6% per year.

The S&P 500 index may not be the best benchmark for the stock picks, many of which are non-U.S. companies.

Following are the essential descriptions of Ken Fisher's annual stock picking performance by year as reported in Forbes:

1998: "If you had bought every one of this column's recommendations last year, you would have done just as well as if you put your money, on the same dates, into the S&P 500 index -- no better, no worse. That's after docking all my recommendations, but not your hypothetical index investment, for a 1% commission cost."

1999: "Let's turn to my individual stock picks. Forbes calculates them each year as if you had invested equally in each of my stock selections, less a 1% phantom brokerage cost, and compares that with investing in [the S&P 500] index on the same dates, same amounts. In 1999 I beat the S&P 500 by 9%."

2000: "On my individual stock picks: Forbes accounts for them as if you invested equally in each selection when it appeared, less a 1% phantom brokerage cost, then compares the result with investing in an S&P 500 index on the same dates, in the same amounts. In 2000 this column broke even, beating the S&P by 10%, almost the same margin as in 1999. The column was lucky. My firm's managed accounts didn't beat the S&P 500 by anything like that."

2001: "At the outset, before the pros' forecasts were in, I recommended three drug stocks: Schering, Akzo Nobel and Novo-Nordisk. Had you invested $10,000 in each of these, you would have lost 2.5% in 2001, factoring in a hypothetical 1% trading cost, or $750 on your $30,000 investment. You would have soundly beaten the market: Putting the $30,000 into the S&P would have lost you $3,420. Once I could do my own forecast, I advised staying out of equities, going for cash and bonds instead. This would have earned you around 4%. Not bad for a bad year."

2002: "My picks declined an average 6% by year-end and would have left you 3% poorer than a hypothetical investor putting the same money at the same dates into a no-load [S&P 500 index] index fund. Actually, all of this is better than my firm's individual clients fared. Note that the performance measure Forbes uses assumes that an investor loses 1% to commissions and bid/ask spreads on each round-trip trade for my stock picks. The hypothetical S&P 500 index fund against which the stock recommendations are compared has no trading costs and no overhead. My four short recommendations were better. They declined on average 23%, 20% more than the average decline of the S&P 500 from the same dates."

2003: "Forbes' statisticians assume that you lose 1% to commissions and bid/ask spreads on your recommended trades and compare the result with the performance of a commission-free investment on the same date in the S&P 500. By this measure my picks beat the market on average by 14%. This formula is too kind to my results last year, since I am trying to beat a global index. Last year the Morgan Stanley World Index did 5% better than the S&P 500, so I was beating my own target by only 9%."

2004: "In 2004 I made 51 recommendations. Had you put $10,000 into each, your $510,000 would have grown to a bit more than $574,000 by year-end, a 12.6% appreciation. This calculation assumes, moreover, a 1% haircut for transaction costs. Had you put the same money on the same dates into the S&P 500 (and with no haircut), your ending value would have been only $548,000. In other words, I was a good five points ahead of the market."

2005: "I suggested 53 stocks in 2005, including stocks re-recommended from 2004, and they collectively were up 14.3%, after a hypothetical 1% transaction haircut on new positions. Equal amounts invested in the S&P 500 (without haircut) at the same times were up only 3.4%. (In my column I choose not to write about companies I already hold in managed accounts.)"

2006: "For 2006 I recommended 54 stocks, one more than in 2005, and my picks returned 15.7%, versus 8.7% for the S&P 500 tracker, an eerily similar seven-point spread."

2007: If you had bought all 60 of my 2007 recommendations you would be up 0.9% right now, assuming you lost 1% to transaction costs. Similarly timed investments in the S&P (without a transaction penalty) would be down a collective 0.5%.

In summary, as calculated by Forbes, Ken Fisher's public stock picks have generally outperformed the broad U.S. stock market over the past ten years by about 6% annually.

We have not independently validated Forbes' calculations.

See Ken Fisher Chronicles for a review of Ken Fisher's accuracy in timing the overall U.S. stock market. See also our blog entry of 10/16/07 for a comprehensive review of the stock-picking abilities of columnists in prominent business magazines.

To discuss this review, go to the Guru Grades Forum.