????一項新研究顯示，投資共同基金或許并不是浪費錢。這一評價不算高，但比起這類流行投資工具近來獲得的評價，這樣的說法還算不錯了。

????如今，人們對一般共同基金經理的評價往往介于傻子和騙子之間。批評者歷來認為，投資一只指數基金（不加選擇地將資金投資于比如標準普爾500指數）強過投資一只個股精選基金。

????比如，去年就有84%的共同基金表現不如類似指數。即便是在華爾街，指數投資似乎也開始占據上風。近幾年，越來越多的資金流向上市交易基金（ETF）和其他傾向于跟蹤指數表現的基金。

????但對共同基金的批評是不是有些過頭了？或許是。美國國家經濟研究局（National Bureau of Economic Research）本周發布的一項最新研究顯示，很多共同基金經理收取較高的管理費確實有其道理。表現不錯的基金有望再熱一段時間。另外，個人在選擇高回報基金方面似乎也做得相當不錯。

????問題是這些結論并沒有看上去那么好。與其他研究不同，由分別來自斯坦福大學（Stanford）和凱洛格商學院（Kellogg）的兩位經濟學教授撰寫的這份《共同基金行業管理技能評估》（Measuring Managerial Skill in the Mutual Fund Industry ）報告通過資產加權方式來衡量共同基金的回報。因此，大基金的損益對計算結果的影響遠超小基金。而且，大基金往往比小基金更有可能表現優于指數，或者即便弱于指數，落后幅度也較小。因此，這項研究發現，雖然大部分共同基金（57%）的表現不如指數基金，但受大基金回報率推動，共同基金總體上仍呈現增值。

????個人有能力選出高回報基金，聽到這也別忙著高興。研究發現，這些基金考慮到自身的優異表現，通常會調高收費，很快抹去選擇優秀基金經理所獲得的任何收益。“很多人表示，積極管理不合算，因為投資者必須付費。”斯坦福大學商學院經濟學教師喬納森?伯克說，“我們發現基金經理確實是靠技能進行收費，然后通過薪酬拿走這些錢。因此，投資者用不著在意這些。”

????這項研究或許更說明了為何仍有數以萬計的共同基金存在，但還是沒有給出一個信服的理由讓我們把錢投入這些基金。選擇正確（很多人或許能做到，但當然不是每個人都能做到）的積極管理基金并不比指數基金糟。因此，即使在最好情況下，選擇一只積極管理的基金也是在浪費時間（即便不浪費錢）。這樣說，聽起來怎樣？

????譯者：早稻米

????A new study suggests that investing in mutual funds might not be a waste of money. It's lowly praise, but it's a better review of the popular investment vehicles than they have recently been getting.

????The prevailing view these days puts the average mutual fund manager somewhere between dope and charlatan. Critics have long contended that individuals would be better off in an index fund, which blindly invests its money in say the S&P 500, rather than going with one of the thousands of funds that try to pick individual stocks.

????Last year, for example, 84% of mutual fund managers failed to best a similar index. Even on Wall Street, indexing seems to be winning more of the day. In the past few years, more and more money has been going into ETFs and other funds that tend to track indexes.

????But has the criticism of mutual funds gone too far? Perhaps. The new study, which was released this week by National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that a lot of mutual fund managers do earn their keep. And funds that do well tend to stay hot for a while. What's more, individuals seem to do a pretty good job of picking the funds that will be the winners.

????The problem is this is not as great news for fund investors as it appears. Unlike other studies,Measuring Managerial Skill in the Mutual Fund Industry asset-weighted mutual fund returns. So gains and losses at larger funds entered more into the calculations of the two co-authors, two economics professors, one from Stanford and the other from Kellogg's graduate business school, than smaller funds. And larger funds, had a tendency to outperform their index, or at least underperform less, than smaller funds. So while the study did find that the majority of the funds, 57%, tended to lose money relative to index funds, overall, the average mutual fund manager, propelled by the returns of the larger funds, added value.

????The fact that individuals were able to pick the funds that would do better than average was also a mix blessing. The study found that those funds, recognizing their superior performance, usually increase their fees, quickly erasing any gain individuals got from selecting the better managers. "There are a lot of people who say active management is bad deal because investors have to pay a fee," says Jonathan Berk, teaches economics at Stanford University's graduate school of business. "What we found is that managers do make the fee up with their skill, and then take it away in compensation. So investors should be indifferent."

????In the end of the day, the study may do a better job of explaining why tens of thousands of mutual funds still exist. But it doesn't really offer a compelling reason to put your money in them. Pick correctly, which many may do, but certainly not everyone, and actively managed funds aren't any worse than an index fund. So in the best case scenario, selecting an actively managed fund is a waste of time, though perhaps not money. How's that for a ringing endorsement.