A decade characterised by technological innovation and the advent of a new digital economy was reflected in the stock price performances of companies in the vanguard of transformations that continue to take place. Funds that specialised in sectors encompassing those movers-and-shakers rewarded investors with spectacular returns.
The Nasdaq 100, which includes some of the most innovative US companies, posted cumulative return of 426.36% between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, according to FE Fundinfo data. So it was unsurprising that passive funds linked to that index or one of its sub-sectors, were the best performers.
These included three Invesco ETFs, led by its EQQQ Nasdaq 100 Ucits ETF which generated a 405.09% cumulative return during the decade, outperforming all other equity funds available to retail investors in Hong Kong and/or Singapore.
However, as many as 13 out of the top 15 actively-managed funds had a technology theme, most typically in the healthcare, biotechnology or life science industries.
The $2.2bn CSIF CS (Lux) Global Digital Health Equity Fund was the stellar actively-managed product, with a 382.77% return, followed by the $1.6bn Candriam Equities L Biotechnology Fund (368.38%) and the $3.6bn Polar Capital Global Technology Fund (345.72%).
The Credit Suisse (CS) fund, managed by Christian Schmid and Thomas Amrein, invests in “pure-play” digital health companies, which are usually small- to mid-size. Its major holdings currently include virtual healthcare provider Teladoc, oncology pioneer Novocure, medical web portal M3, biopharmaceutical firm Zai Lab and Guardant Health, a medical diagnostics company.
Top 3 performing active equity funds of the decade
| Fund* |
AUM |
Cumulative Return | Annualised Return | Alpha | Annualised Volatility | Info Ratio |
OCF |
| CSIF CS (Lux) Global Digital Health Equity |
$2.2bn |
382.77% | 16.92% | 1.89 | 23.72% | 0.36 |
1.85% |
| Candriam Equities L Biotechnology |
$1.6bn |
368.38% | 16.36% | 0.54 | 23.25% | 0.38 |
2.28% |
| Polar Capital Global Technology |
$3.6bn |
345.72% | 15.86% | 3.20 | 18.56% | 0.66 |
1.66% |
Source: FE Fundinfo. All data in US dollars, 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2019
*Funds authorised for sale in Hong Kong and/or Singapore; **retail share class
In contrast to funds dedicated to “new economy” technologies, many active funds devoted to fossil fuels, mining or precious metals had a disastrous decade. Out of the 15 worst performers during the decade, seven focused on energy or natural resources and six retained their atavistic fervour for gold and other precious metals.
According to FE Fundinfo, the average gold and precious metals fund suffered a 35.41% cumulative loss between 2010 and 2020, and the energy sector average was barely more successful, with a 32.55% cumulative decline.
Bottom 3 performing active equity funds of the decade
| Fund* |
AUM |
Cumulative Return | Annualised Return | Alpha | Annualised Volatility | Info Ratio |
OCF |
| Schroder ISF Global Energy |
$253m |
-63.91% | -9.94% | -2.68 | 27.67% | -0.42 |
1.84% |
| Amundi CPR Global Mines |
$207m |
-55.21% | -8.52% | -3.88 | 32.41% | -0.39 |
3.55% |
| LO World Gold Expertise (Eur) Syst |
$89m |
-55.11% | -8.64% | -1.76 | 35.57% | -0.32 |
2.39% |
Source: FE Fundinfo. All data in US dollars, 1 January 2010 – 31 December 2019
*Funds authorised for sale in Hong Kong and/or Singapore; **retail share class
Sector and indices performance in the 2010s*
