Fund Managers vs DIY Investors: Why the “Experts” Underperform and How You Can Do Better

Investors often entrust their pension and investment ISAs to professional fund managers or independent financial advisors (IFAs), expecting superior returns. Yet a growing body of data and research shows that many actively managed funds – including those in pension schemes – consistently underperform, and that individual investors can sometimes achieve better results by managing their own portfolios.

This article explores the systemic issues causing fund managers and advisors to lag, presents evidence of their historical underperformance (especially in pensions), and shows why a savvy private investor focused on stock picking can potentially beat the pros. We’ll also outline practical stock-picking strategies for retail investors seeking financial independence, with an engaging yet rigorous, data-driven approach.

The Systemic Issues Holding Back Fund Managers and IFAs

Multiple structural problems in the investment industry explain why fund managers and some financial advisors fail to deliver optimal returns for clients (pension savers included). Key factors include:

• High Fees and Costs: The fees charged by active funds and some advisory products eat directly into investor returns. Annual management charges of 1-2%, plus transaction costs, can erase any value the manager adds. In fact, studies find that mutual funds, on average, underperform the market by roughly the amount of their expenses – essentially zero value added after fees .

  
  

  

  
  

  John Bogle (founder of Vanguard) famously showed that active investors incur layers of extra costs (trading, cash drag, sales loads, taxes) that index fund investors avoid . Over long periods, even a seemingly “small” 1% annual fee compounds to a significant performance drag.
  

• “Closet Indexing” (Index-Hugging Portfolios): Many active fund managers secretly hug their benchmark index to avoid looking too different from peers. They hold most of the same stocks as the index, so results end up index-like – yet investors are still charged high “active” fees. This practice, known as closet indexing, virtually guarantees underperformance.

  
  

  

  
  

  As finance researcher Antti Petajisto put it, closet index funds are doomed to underperform because they deliver index-like returns while charging high fees for it . In other words, if you’re paying 1%+ for a fund that is 95% the FTSE All-Share or S&P 500, you will likely get the index return minus that fee. Unfortunately, closet indexing has been widespread, meaning many investors have unknowingly paid for “active” management that isn’t genuinely active.
  

• Short-Termism and Excessive Trading: Fund managers face intense pressure to beat the market this quarter or this year, leading to frequent trading and a focus on short-term price movements over long-term fundamentals. This short-termism can hurt investor outcomes.

  

  
  

  High portfolio turnover means higher transaction costs and tax impacts, further eroding returns. Research shows that over recent decades the average mutual fund’s turnover skyrocketed (from ~30% in the 1960s to 140% by the 2000s) – implying many funds churn their entire portfolios every year. Such frenetic trading is often counterproductive. One famous study of 66,000 households found that the investors who traded the most earned an abysmal 11.4% annually, while the market returned 17.9% in the same period. In investing, activity often detracts from performance (“Don’t just do something; sit there!”). Yet career concerns push professionals toward constant action, even when patience would yield better results.
  

• Misaligned Incentives and Herding: Many fund managers and institutions are not truly incentivised to maximise your returns. They often care more about avoiding big mistakes and keeping assets under management (which determine their fees) than boldly outperforming. This leads to a herd mentality – sticking close to the benchmark and peers (even if it means mediocre returns) because deviating and underperforming could cost them their job. As John Maynard Keynes observed, “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” In practice, fund managers would rather be wrong together (and keep their jobs) than risk being the lone maverick who’s wrong.

  
  

  

  
  

  This career risk dynamic causes timid, “average” portfolio management. The result is funds that hug indexes, avoid truly contrarian bets, and hold excess cash in downturns – decisions driven by business risk, not by what’s best for client performance. Managers are often paid based on assets or short-term relative returns, not on long-term outperformance for investors, creating a principal–agent problem. The upshot: clients don’t get exceptional results; they get index-like (or worse) results with a higher fee structure.
  

• Conflicts of Interest in the IFA Sector: While the term “Independent” implies unbiased advice, the retail advice sector has historically been rife with conflicts. In the past, many financial advisers earned commissions or kickbacks for recommending certain funds or pension products. This could motivate advisors to suggest high-fee funds from which they benefited, rather than truly optimal low-cost investments for the client. Even after regulatory changes (like the UK’s Retail Distribution Review banning commissions), conflicts persist. For example, some advisors are tied to in-house products, and others may favour funds that sponsor their firm’s events or offer other soft incentives.

  
  

  

  
  

  Empirical research confirms that conflicted advice leads to worse outcomes: one study found that mutual funds sold through brokers (commission-based advisors) underperformed funds bought directly by investors by about 0.5–0.9% per year. In other words, paying for advice often steered people into higher-cost, lower-return funds, resulting in a measurable performance gap. Another analysis concluded that broker-sold funds tend to underperform by an amount commensurate with the extra fees and commissions they carry. These conflicts mean pension savers may end up in underperforming products that enrich advisors and fund companies more than the investor.
  

• Regulatory and Structural Constraints: Fund managers (especially pension fund managers) operate within regulatory frameworks that can inadvertently hinder returns. For instance, pension funds often have strict guidelines on asset allocation, liquidity, and risk limits.

  

  
  

  A UK example is the 0.75% fee cap on default workplace pension funds, which is great for keeping costs low, but also means these funds rarely use specialist or illiquid investments (like venture capital, small-cap stocks, or other “productive finance” assets) that might offer higher returns – because those often come with higher fees or complexity. Likewise, many open-ended funds must provide daily liquidity and pricing, which forces managers to stick to readily tradeable, large-cap assets. They can’t easily hold out-of-index microcaps or illiquid opportunities for the long term, because regulations and platform rules require the ability to cash out investors daily. This can lead to a “boxed in” investment universe and missed opportunities. Finally, onerous compliance and capital requirements might discourage innovation or risk-taking – a manager might avoid a promising but volatile stock if it could breach risk limits or tracking error constraints. All these factors can make professionally managed portfolios more constrained and homogenised than a DIY investor’s portfolio can be.

Bottom line: The typical actively managed fund or advised portfolio is burdened with higher fees, index-hugging behaviour, short time horizons, and incentive misalignments that make underperformance the norm rather than the exception. And when it comes to pensions – where one might assume extra prudence and expertise – the evidence shows many pension funds suffer from the same issues, often delivering lackluster returns for savers.

The Track Record: Evidence of Historical Underperformance

Decades of research and real-world data paint a sobering picture of professional investment management. In aggregate, fund managers have a very hard time beating simple index benchmarks over long periods – especially after fees. Here are some eye-opening findings from credible studies and surveys:

• Most Active Funds Lag the Market: Standard & Poor’s regularly publishes the SPIVA (S&P Indices Versus Active) scorecards, which compare active fund performance to benchmarks. The results are consistently grim.

  
  

  

  
  

  For example, the Mid-Year 2023 SPIVA report for Europe showed that over the 10-year period ending June 2023, at least 80% of active funds underperformed their benchmark in 17 of 22 categories analysed. In certain categories the failure rates were even higher – 98% of global equity funds lagged the index over 10 years, and 95% of U.S. equity funds (UK-domiciled) underperformed over 10 years. In short, the vast majority of professional stock pickers failed to deliver index-beating returns in the long run.
  

• Pension Funds Underperform Simple Trackers: It’s not just retail mutual funds; even institutional pension funds (which one might hope could negotiate lower fees or hire top managers) have underwhelmed.

  
  

  

  
  

  A recent analysis by AJ Bell looked at UK pension funds’ performance over the past decade. The finding: 9 out of 10 UK pension funds (91%) delivered lower returns than a low-cost FTSE All-Share index tracker over ten years . And it wasn’t just a slight shortfall – over a third of those funds lagged the index by more than 20% cumulatively. This is a striking indictment: simply buying a cheap index fund tracking UK stocks would have beaten almost any actively managed UK pension fund. So much for paying for expertise with your retirement savings! (Granted, some pension funds hold diversified assets like bonds for risk management, but even on a risk-adjusted basis many did not excel).
  

• High Fees = Low Returns: Multiple academic studies have concluded that fees are a powerful predictor of fund performance – the higher the cost, the worse the net returns to investors. As noted, one seminal study found the average mutual fund underperforms the market by roughly its expense ratio.

  
  

  

  
  

  In practice, this means that before costs, fund managers as a group might match the index, but after charging ~1% in fees, they end up ~1% behind each year. Over 20-30 years (the lifespan of a pension investment), that fee drag compounds dramatically. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK observed similarly that many active funds deliver “benchmark minus fees” performance – essentially the investor would have been better off in a cheap tracker. Paying more rarely gets you more in investing; in fact, it often gets you less.
  

• Survivorship Bias and Inconsistent Skill: Another issue is that funds with really poor performance often shut down or merge away, so reported averages can overstate how the typical fund does. S&P found that less than half of all UK equity funds even survived a 10-year period – many disappeared along the way.
  

  

  
  

  Among those that survived, the majority underperformed, as we saw. Even the few that beat the market in one period often fail to repeat that success. Academic research by Carhart (1997) and others found that persistence in mutual fund outperformance is very elusive – a top-quartile fund one year often drops to middling or worse in subsequent years once luck fades. In fact, Carhart famously showed that the only clear persistent factor in fund returns was expenses and turnover (i.e. funds that kept costs low tended to have better relative performance, not because of stock-picking magic but because investors kept more of the gross return).
  

• Conflicted Advice Hurts Performance: As discussed, advice channels that are subject to conflicts (like commission-based sales) tend to result in inferior outcomes for investors. A study in the Journal of Finance by Bergstresser, Chalmers, and Tufano examined U.S. funds and found that funds sold by brokers underperformed those bought directly by 0.23% to 0.87% per year on a risk-adjusted basis.

  
  

  

  
  

  The difference was largely attributable to higher fees/loads and suboptimal fund choices in the broker-sold accounts. In plain terms, if your pension or investment was funnelled into a product via an advisor who got a kickback, you likely paid the price in lower returns. Similarly, German researchers found that clients of banks who received incentives to sell certain funds ended up with worse-performing portfolios than self-directed investors. These findings reinforced regulators’ moves to curb conflicted remuneration, but such practices haven’t vanished entirely, and even fee-based advisors may have subtle biases. The net effect is that many advised customers have not gotten the full benefit of market growth.
  

All of this evidence leads to a clear conclusion: the average professional investor (after costs) underperforms the market, and by extension underperforms what a low-cost index approach would achieve. Whether we look at mutual funds, pension funds, or advisor-directed portfolios, the story is the same. The promise of professional management – that experts will navigate the market’s complexities and deliver superior returns – simply hasn’t materialized for the majority of investors.

Of course, there are exceptions (a handful of star fund managers have beaten the odds, and some specialised funds do outperform in certain periods). But identifying them in advance is exceedingly difficult. For most people, most of the time, sticking with typical actively managed funds or overpaying for advice has meant giving up return. This realisation has fuelled the rise of passive investing (index funds and ETFs) and prompts a logical question: could you do it yourself and do better?

Why Private Investors Can Do Better (Yes, You Can Beat the Pros)

It’s often assumed that retail investors (individuals managing their own money) are doomed to underperform – after all, they lack the resources, information, and training of professionals. Indeed, many studies have documented behavioural mistakes by individuals (trading too often, chasing hot stocks, panicking in downturns). On average, individual investors have tended to lag market benchmarks as well, largely due to those behavioural errors. However, “on average” covers a wide range – and crucially, motivated, disciplined private investors can overcome common pitfalls. 

In fact, there is evidence that a subset of individual stock-pickers do outperform the market and handily beat most fund managers. Let’s explore why a DIY investor, especially one managing a SIPP (Self-Invested Personal Pension) or ISA portfolio of stocks, can have advantages that the professionals do not:

• Lower Fees = Immediate Head Start: The DIY investor who buys stocks directly avoids the layer of management fees that come with funds. Aside from a small trading commission or platform fee, you’re not paying 1%+ yearly to a middleman. Over a long horizon, saving that 1-2% per year gives you a significant edge.

  
  

  

  
  

  Think of it this way: a typical fund manager starts each year, in effect, 2% in the hole (due to fees) versus the market – meaning they must outperform by 2% just to tie an index. You as an individual stock-picker start at 0% handicap. This cost advantage is one reason even if you merely achieve market-like stock performance in your SIPP/ISA, you could beat many actively managed pension funds that delivered market-minus-fees returns. Keeping costs low is the one “sure thing” in investing, and a private investor has full control over this.
  

• No Closet Indexing – Truly Active Decisions: Unlike a career-conscious fund manager, a private investor doesn’t have to closet index or hug a benchmark. You can be truly active in your stock selection – holding only your best ideas. If you have conviction that, say, a handful of companies are great opportunities, you can concentrate your portfolio in those, rather than diluting it with hundreds of stocks just to mimic an index.

  
  

  

  
  

  Many of the best-performing individual portfolios are relatively focused. This high “active share” (how much your holdings differ from an index) is necessary for significant outperformance. A fund manager might secretly agree with you on the best 10 stocks to own, but they might still hold 50 or 100 other names to manage tracking error – which drags down their overall return if those extra names are merely average. You have no such constraint. You’re free to think and act independently, which, if done well, allows you to outperform the herd.
  

• Ability to Invest in Small and Under followed Stocks: Individual investors can exploit opportunities in areas of the market that large funds cannot or will not venture into. For example, small-cap and micro-cap stocks, which are often under-researched and mispriced, can be a fertile hunting ground for higher returns.

  
  

  

  
  

  Big funds managing billions simply can’t meaningfully invest in a company with a £50 million market cap – it’s too small to move their needle, and liquidity is a concern. But a private investor with a five or six-figure portfolio can invest in such stocks. There’s evidence that smaller stocks, on average, offer a return premium over long periods (the so-called “size premium”), although they can be volatile. By focusing on overlooked gems – perhaps a niche AIM-listed company or an under-appreciated regional business – you could find growth that outpaces the FTSE 100 giants. You have the flexibility to go where funds won’t. Additionally, you might have informational advantages in certain areas – for instance, insight into an industry because you work in it, or knowledge of a local company’s strong reputation – that a far-removed fund manager might miss. (Always stay on the right side of insider trading laws, of course, but understanding a business deeply is not illicit – it’s an edge!).
  

• Longer Time Horizon and Patience: One of the biggest edges a retail investor can have is a truly long-term perspective. You’re investing for your own goals (e.g. retirement in 10, 20, or 30 years), and you don’t have to report to investors quarterly or annually on relative performance. This means you can hold onto great companies through short-term noise, or ride out a rough patch in the market without being fired by panicky clients. Fund managers, in contrast, often feel compelled to act if a stock underperforms for a couple of quarters – they might dump a future winner at the worst time because it’s hurting this year’s returns.

  
  

  

  
  

  Individual investors can be more patient and let compounding work. An anecdote from Fidelity Investments drives this point home: when Fidelity studied which customer accounts had the best performance, they found the top accounts belonged to people who forgot they had an account (and thus never traded) ! The second-best group was, as the joke goes, people who were dead – meaning no meddling from beyond the grave. While you don’t need to be that hands-off, the lesson is clear: doing less can lead to more. A private investor who isn’t forced to chase short-term results can stick with a winning stock for a decade and reap multi-bagger returns – something many pros fail to do. Patience and conviction are key, and individuals can afford both more readily than institutions.

• Alignment and Focus on Absolute Returns: When you manage your own money, your incentive is straightforward: grow your wealth. There’s no complex incentive structure that might cause you to make suboptimal choices – you don’t get paid extra for taking in new cash at the expense of performance, or for keeping your volatility low relative to a benchmark.

  
  

  

  
  

  You care about absolute returns (how much did my portfolio grow) rather than whether you beat some index by a slim margin this year. This clarity of goal can actually lead to better decisions. For instance, if the market looks overvalued, you can raise cash or tilt defensive without worrying that you’ll be fired for trailing the index in a late-stage bubble. Conversely, if you see a fantastic opportunity, you can go overweight a sector or stock even if it makes you “unbalanced” in the eyes of Modern Portfolio Theory. Basically, you answer only to yourself, and that freedom can be used to your advantage. You can avoid the “fail conventionally” trap that institutional players fall into. Every decision you make can be solely about increasing your long-term returns (within your risk comfort), not about optics or short-term comparisons.
  

• Evidence of Skilled Individual Investors: While many individual investors do underperform due to mistakes, a number of studies have found that a significant minority of individuals consistently beat the market, indicating genuine skill. Notably, professors Brad Barber and Terrance Odean (2000) documented that, in their large dataset, the top-performing quartile of individual investor accounts actually outperformed the market by an average of 0.5% per month (6% per year). That is a huge edge – and importantly, they found this outperformance persisted, suggesting it wasn’t just luck.

  
  

  

  
  

  Another study found “strong persistence in the performance” of the best individual traders, and that this persistent success came primarily from stock-selection ability rather than market timing. In plain English, some individual stock pickers do have the skill to consistently pick winners and beat the pros, and those who are good tend to stay good. This flies in the face of the idea that all retail investors are clueless. It appears that with the right approach – disciplined stock analysis, patience, and maybe a bit of behavioural edge – a DIY investor can outperform even after adjusting for risk. These findings are echoed in the real world by stories of “ISA millionaires” and private investors who have built substantial fortunes through direct equity investing (more on those in a moment).
  

To be clear, not every individual will outperform (and many might still be better off indexing if they don’t want to put in the effort). But the potential is there, and there are clear reasons why a dedicated private investor can have an edge. By avoiding the baggage of the fund industry – the fees, the constraints, the herd behaviour – you give yourself a fighting chance to do better than the so-called experts. And even if you only match the market with your own stock picks, you’ve likely still beaten most active funds after fees. The combination of lower costs and the freedom to truly invest for the long term tilts the odds in your favour.

Real-World Examples: Individual Investors Outperforming the Pros

It’s one thing to discuss theory and statistics; it’s another to see actual examples of private investors winning. So let’s look at some real cases that illustrate how individuals, by picking their own stocks, have achieved superior outcomes compared to funds:

• ISA Millionaires and Their Strategies: In the UK, Stocks & Shares ISAs (tax-advantaged investment accounts) have been around since 1999, and a number of ordinary investors have managed to grow their ISA portfolios to over £1 million – something many professionally managed pension funds fail to achieve for their clients on a similar contribution base. What’s interesting is how these ISA millionaires invested. AJ Bell, a major investment platform, analysed the portfolios of their clients who reached seven-figure ISA balances. The findings were telling: the vast majority (75%) of those portfolios were invested in individual stocks, not funds. These investors largely shunned expensive funds and instead bought shares in companies directly – often blue-chip, dividend-paying companies.

  
  

  

  
  

  By doing so, they dramatically reduced fees and concentrated on a handful of strong, well-understood businesses, which “can lead to market outperformance,” according to AJ Bell’s analysis. The top holdings of these ISA millionaires included names like Shell, Lloyds Banking Group, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), BP, and other large-cap stalwarts. Many also held U.S. tech giants like Apple or Microsoft. In essence, they built their own diversified stock portfolios of quality companies – effectively creating a low-cost “fund” of their own design – and crucially, held them for the long term. Dan Coatsworth, an investment analyst at AJ Bell, noted that these investors exhibit a “buy and hold mentality” and avoid overtrading, which is often the downfall of retail investors. In fact, some positions in their portfolios came from corporate spin-offs and demergers (e.g. free shares in Haleon that were spun out of GSK) which they simply kept instead of rushing to sell. This patience and willingness to stick with solid companies through corporate changes served them well. The result? By reinvesting dividends, steadily adding contributions, and not getting scared out of the market, these individuals amassed compounding gains that outstripped what most actively managed funds delivered. Their success underscores the power of consistent investing in stocks, low costs, and long-term holding – principles any DIY investor can emulate.
  

• The “Forgotten” 401(k) Accounts Out-performers: We touched on the Fidelity study earlier, but it deserves repeating as a “case study” in doing nothing (and winning). Fidelity Investments reportedly found that among the millions of retirement accounts they manage, the highest returns belonged to investors who never tinkered with their portfolios – in fact, in many cases, the account owners had forgotten about their investments entirely.

  
  

  

  
  

  While not a single identifiable individual, this group serves as a powerful example. By avoiding the typical human behaviours of jumping in and out of funds or trying to time the market, these “accidentally passive” investors beat the vast majority of active traders and fund managers. It’s a real-world illustration of a counterintuitive truth: humble inactivity can trump expert action. For a private investor, the takeaway is that you don’t need fancy moves – if you pick a sound set of stocks or index funds and then leave it alone, you may very well outperform highly active strategies. It also highlights that individual investors’ worst enemy is often themselves; those who restrained that impulse (even if by negligence!) ended up better off.
  

• Investment Clubs and “Amateur” Stock Pickers: There are numerous anecdotes of investment clubs or amateur investors who beat the market by focusing on what they know. One famous story involved a group of Texans in the 1990s (beardstown ladies aside – their returns were exaggerated) or doctors in the U.S. who formed an investment club and managed to outperform many professional managers through common-sense stock picks and patience.

  
  

  

  
  

  While not all such clubs do well, the ones that treat investing as a business – doing fundamental research, taking long views, and not getting caught up in hype – have sometimes matched or exceeded professional results. Another example: the ShareSoc (UK Individual Shareholders Society) often highlights private investors who achieve strong returns by investing in UK smaller companies and holding for years, capitalising on growth that larger funds missed.

These examples reinforce that it is possible for individuals to achieve outstanding investment results, even better than the pros. The common threads are evident: low costs, long-term horizon, disciplined stock selection, and emotional restraint. None of these are exclusive to Wall Street or the City; they are habits and strategies within reach of any investor willing to learn and stay the course.

It’s worth noting that not every DIY investor will become an ISA millionaire or beat the market – investing is risky and there will be losers as well as winners. But the point is, the deck is not hopelessly stacked against you. In fact, in some ways the deck is stacked against the professional managers, and a private investor who avoids their pitfalls can come out ahead.

Practical Stock-Picking Strategies for Retail Investors

If you’re inspired to take more control of your pension or ISA and try your hand at direct stock investing, it’s important to approach it with sound strategies. Here are some evidence-backed practical tips for retail investors aiming to outperform (or at least get the best results possible):

• Keep Fees to an Absolute Minimum

  

  This is step one. Use low-cost brokerage platforms for your SIPP/ISA, avoid funds with high expense ratios, and be mindful of trading costs. Every pound of fees is a pound off your returns. Favouring individual stocks (or ultra-low-cost ETFs where appropriate) means you’re not paying annual fund management fees. Cost savings are the only guaranteed “win” in investing – capture them.
  

• Think Long Term – Truly Long Term

  

  Embrace a long investment horizon. When you buy a stock, consider yourself a part-owner of the business with a multi-year outlook. Avoid the trap of constant tinkering or reacting to daily news. Remember the Fidelity lesson: the best performers forgot they even had the account. While you don’t need to forget, you should act as if selling is a last resort, not a go-to move. Give your investments time to compound. Many great stock stories (ten-baggers and the like) took a decade or more to play out. Patience is a competitive advantage for the individual investor.
  

• Don’t Overtrade – Quality Over Quantity

  

  Frequent trading not only racks up costs but often leads to buying high and selling low due to emotional reactions. Set a high bar for making changes to your portfolio. If you’ve researched and chosen your stocks well, you shouldn’t need to constantly shuffle them.

  Legendary investor Warren Buffett quips that his favourite holding period is “forever” for the right businesses. You don’t literally have to hold forever, but avoid knee-jerk selling on volatility. Likewise, don’t chase the hot tip of the week. Stick to your strategy. Studies show that individuals who trade less end up with better results on average . So trade like you’re getting charged a fee even if you aren’t – only do it when it really counts.
  

• Diversify, but Not Too Much – Avoid Closet Indexing Your Own Portfolio

  

  You want a Goldilocks portfolio – not too concentrated (so that one bad pick ruins you), but not so over-diversified that you effectively become the index (in which case you may as well just buy an index fund!). Research suggests 15-20 stocks in different industries can eliminate the majority of unsystematic risk. The ISA millionaires mentioned typically held around that number of stocks (often in the 10–20 range of core holdings). That’s enough to provide resilience if one or two falter, but each holding still matters. If you find yourself with 50+ stocks “just to be safe,” consider that you might be diluting your best ideas and incurring analysis paralysis. Each stock you own beyond a point likely lowers your potential to outperform (because you start mirroring the market) while adding complexity. Be selective and build a portfolio of your highest-conviction ideas – and then monitor them periodically to ensure the thesis remains intact.

• Do Your Homework (Knowledge is Your Edge)

  

  
  

  When picking stocks, focus on businesses you understand or can get to understand. Read company reports, follow the news and earnings calls, and maybe use the products/services yourself if possible. Peter Lynch popularised “invest in what you know,” which is a great starting point – just be sure to analyse the company’s financials and valuation, not only your familiarity. As a retail investor, you likely won’t have access to fancy research departments, but you can read the same financial statements and analyst reports that everyone else sees. Look for companies with strong fundamentals: steady earnings or cash flow growth, reasonable debt, a competitive advantage (moat), and competent, shareholder-friendly management. Or, if you’re into value investing, seek companies that are temporarily out-of-favour but have solid assets or turnaround potential. Whatever your style (growth, value, dividend, etc.), stick to a circle of competence. Your deep understanding of a company can be an edge over a fund manager who might be spread thin following 100 different stocks.
  

• Exploit Your Agility

  

  
  

  You can act quickly on opportunities and adjust your strategy nimbly since you don’t have bureaucracy or massive scale. If a market crash happens, you can deploy cash into your highest-conviction buys without needing a committee’s approval. If a tiny stock crashes on a knee-jerk market overreaction, you can scoop it up (whereas a fund might be too slow or constrained to bother with a micro-cap). This agility is especially useful in volatile markets – you can be a contrarian when others are forced to be crowd-followers.
  

• Mind the Behavioural Pitfalls

  

  
  

  Be on guard against common psychological mistakes – don’t panic sell in downturns, don’t get overconfident after a big win, avoid the temptation to double down on a losing stock just to “get your money back” (the disposition effect). Have a plan and rules for yourself. For example, if a stock’s fundamentals deteriorate (not just the price), you’ll sell; but you won’t sell just because it’s down X%.

  
  

• Leverage Tax Advantages and Reinvest Dividends

  

  
  

  Since we’re talking SIPPs and ISAs, make sure you fully utilise these wrappers. Reinvesting dividends is a powerful, yet often under-appreciated, driver of long-term returns – many of those blue-chip ISA millionaires benefited from compounding dividends over decades. In a SIPP/ISA, dividends and capital gains are tax-free, so you can reinvest 100% of your gains. Reinvest those payouts into either buying more of the same stocks or adding new positions that strengthen your portfolio. Over 20-30 years, the difference between reinvesting and not is enormous. Also, contribute regularly to these accounts (pay yourself first each month) – fresh capital invested during market dips can boost your overall returns (this is essentially a form of pound-cost averaging, which takes advantage of volatility).
  

• Learn Continuously and Stay Humble

  

  
  

  The market has a way of humbling everyone at times. Treat setbacks as lessons rather than reasons to give up. Read widely – not just bullish pieces but also bear cases on your holdings. Follow research from credible sources, read books by great investors (Buffett’s letters, Howard Marks memos, etc. – these can inculcate a sound mindset). By continuously improving your knowledge, you increase your chances of spotting opportunities and avoiding errors. And if down the road you find that picking stocks isn’t yielding the desired results, there’s no shame in adjusting course – even opting to index part of your portfolio. The goal is your financial success, not proving a point. The fact that you’re taking charge at all already puts you ahead of those who blindly trust the system.
  

By adhering to these strategies, retail investors can maximise their probability of success. The formula of low fees + long-term focus + prudent stock selection + discipline is a time-tested one. It’s not a get-rich-quick recipe – rather, it’s about steadily building wealth and potentially surpassing the performance of expensive, constrained fund managers who don’t have these advantages.

Taking Charge of Your Financial Future

The data is clear: many fund managers and advisors, despite their resources and influence over our pension pots, have underperformed due to systemic issues like high fees, closet indexing, short-termism, and misaligned incentives.

The very structure of the investment industry often works against investors’ best interests, leading to subpar pension growth and missed financial goals.However, individual investors are not powerless bystanders.

With the knowledge of these pitfalls, you can choose a different path – one where you control your investments, costs are minimal, and decisions are made with a long-term owner’s mindset.

Private investors managing their own SIPPs and ISAs have proven that, by focusing on stock picking and sensible strategies, they can beat the professionals at their own game. From academic studies showing top-tier individual stock-pickers outperforming, to real ISA millionaires quietly compounding their portfolios, the examples are inspiring. You don’t need to be a market wizard to achieve this; you need to be patient, informed, and disciplined. In a sense, successful DIY investing is less about brainy forecasts or complex trading and more about common-sense principles executed consistently.

If you’re dissatisfied with the high fees and mediocre returns of your managed pension, consider dedicating a portion of your investments to a DIY approach. Even starting with a small “experiment” portfolio of stocks can help you learn and gain confidence.

Over time, as you apply the strategies outlined – keeping costs low, investing in quality businesses, not reacting to every market wiggle – you may find your results surpassing those of the expensive funds you used to hold.

And even if they don’t at first, you’re likely to at least match the market (which is more than most active funds have done), all while learning valuable skills and having greater control over your financial destiny.

In the pursuit of financial independence, every percentage point of return and every pound of fee saved counts. By avoiding the systemic traps of the fund management industry and embracing a DIY, stock-focused investment strategy, you tilt the odds in your favour.

The journey requires effort and courage – it’s always easier to let “experts” handle things – but the rewards (both financial and in personal growth) can be substantial.

Ultimately, no one cares more about your money than you do. Armed with research, a clear strategy, and the willingness to think and act for the long run, you truly can build a better outcome for your pension and investments than the status quo would deliver.

The underperformance of fund managers is a cautionary tale, but also an invitation: take charge, do it smartly, and you might just find that the best fund manager for your future is the person staring back at you in the mirror.

RISK WARNING: All investing is risky. Returns at not guaranteed. Past performance and case studies are no guarantee of future results.

Disclaimer: The content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The opinions expressed here are the author's own and do not reflect the views of any associated companies. Investing in financial markets involves risk, including the potential loss of your invested capital. Past performance is not indicative of future results. 

You should not invest money that you cannot afford to lose. Mentions of specific securities, investment strategies, or financial products do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. The author may hold positions in the securities discussed, but these should not be viewed as personalised investment advice. 

Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and seek professional advice before acting on any information provided in this blog. The author is not responsible for any investment decisions made based on the content of this blog.

Alpesh Patel OBE

www.campaignforamillion.com 

Visit www.alpeshpatel.com/shares for more and see www.alpeshpatel.com/links