I want to grow my capital by investing in funds (e.g. exchange-traded funds, mutual funds). However, I always see this disclaimer: "past performance does not indicate future performance" (or similar).
How am I supposed to evaluate a fund if the past performance of the fund is meaningless?
If it is true that "past performance does not indicate future performance", then why do fund companies bother to publish the past performance of their funds?
past performance does not indicate future performance
Yes, obvious statement is obvious.
Pretend for a moment that we applied this statement to Olympic gold medalists. The statement is not needed because if past performance guaranteed future performance then why hold the Olympics?
why do fund companies bother to publish the past performance of their funds?
If a fund increased by 300% in the past year then I want to know about it.
That fund is either heavily vested in a hot market which I think can climb higher or it has peaked and I should avoid it at all costs.
Likewise if a fund has lost 80% of it's value then I would research why so that I can determine if it is a bargain or if it will never recover.
Imagine being presented with a fund for $24 per share. Without further context, tell me is this a good or bad deal?
How am I supposed to evaluate a fund if the past performance of the fund is meaningless?
For starters you look at the investment contents of the fund and research the companies to make decisions as to whether you think they will be worth more in the future.
Gamblers buy stocks/funds based solely on price.
Investors make their decisions based on company data.
I always see this disclaimer: "past performance does not indicate future performance"
How am I supposed to evaluate a fund if the past performance of the fund is meaningless?
"does not indicate" does not mean "meaningless". Thus, your fundamental premise is flawed.
(The SEC-mandated disclaimer is so that brokerages don't get sued by investors when they lose money during a recession or bubble-collapse.)
The disclaimer has to be there by law. Just because a fund went up by 10% last year, it doesn't mean it will this year. It could even go down.
Look at what's included in the fund. Is it the mix of investments you want your money in? Look at the charges, are they reasonable, when compared with others? Are there any weird features, such as a fund that's guaranteed not to go down, but if it goes up, the managers keep 50% of the profits for themselves (yes, I have seen a fund advertised that works like that)?
And compare the fund you're interested with others in the same market segment, going back several years. Does this fund grow faster (or shrink slower in a bad year) compared with the others?
The requirement to include those words are because the government wants investors to see the warning.
The past performance is included because the government wants to standardize how the performance data is presented.
So how to you decide when the warning tells you to ignore past performance? That is why the general advice is that most investors can focus on a passive fund following a broad index. Chasing the fund that was hot last week, last month, last quarter, or last year is just chasing the hot hand. The next period might not be so good. Also the reverse is true. There is/was a method of focusing on last years dogs of the Dow when picking stocks for this year. There was no guarantee that would consistently work.
This is a great argument for low-cost index funds, in my opinion. The one thing you do know that probably won't change drastically is expense ratio. So figure out what type of assets you want to own and find a highly diversified index fund that holds them with the lowest expense ratio you can find (don't get carried away though; within a few basis points is fine).
As to your other question, I think fund companies publish past performance because they're required to, despite the disclaimer. And of course, if the performance is good they will heavily tout it.
