Active vs. passive: The case for both

Active strategies tend to perform better in down markets, and active managers are more likely to outperform their benchmarks in certain asset classes

Jan 22, 2019 @ 4:30 pm

By Aaron Hodari

Vanguard founder Jack Bogle started the debate about active versus passive investing when he created the first index fund in 1975.

Hundreds of additional index funds, countless studies and one historic recession later, passive investing has become a household concept and is accepted as the preferred method of investing for millions of investors.

You've seen the headlines and stats by now: We've reached the end of active investing. Billions of dollars are flowing from active to passive funds. Ninety percent of active stock managers fail to beat their benchmarks.

If you've been following this debate for years, as I have, you've also probably seen the counterarguments, of which there are many.

This is the wrong discussion. The reality is, when it comes to managing investments, there's room for both philosophies.

Diplomatic, I know.

First of all, when we talk about active versus passive investing, we're really having two separate discussions. The first is about asset allocation, the second is about what you do within that allocation. Here's how I think about each.

Managing your allocation

There are several internal factors that dictate how you allocate your portfolio. The evolution of these variables (age, net worth, risk profile, etc.) over time will change where you fall on the active-passive spectrum.

For many investors, the best solution very well might be robo-advisers. If you have a smaller net worth or don't require much financial planning, the diversified investment options provided by robo-advisers are as cost-efficient and passive as you're going to get.

A higher-net-worth individual, on the other hand, is likely to have more needs. Optimizing a portfolio for complexities like estate planning and tax efficiency will require a more active approach to how assets are allocated. The high-net-worth clients I work with typically require a more diversified allocation beyond stocks, bonds and cash into assets such as real estate, insurance, private equity and other alternatives.

And then, of course, you have to consider the external factors, such as market conditions, when thinking about an active versus passive approach. Historically, active strategies tend to perform better in down markets, while passive strategies outperform in up markets. Morgan Stanley found that over the last 20 years, the top 25% of portfolio managers significantly outperformed their benchmarks in years when the market was down.

The period from 2009 to today has been one of the longest U.S. equity bull markets in history — save for a couple of brief pauses — so it's no surprise that passive investing has become the predominant philosophy over the last decade. If the volatility in U.S. equities continues in 2019, it would stand to reason that money would flow back into actively managed funds as investors try to improve their risk-adjusted returns.

Drilling down

Let's get to the second part of the equation: determining how active or passive you want to be in managing your specific allocations to various assets. This largely comes down to the asset in question.

Research has found that active managers are more likely to outperform their benchmarks on a net-of-fee basis in certain asset classes. This is true in international equities, where the median active fund manager outperforms by over 1.5% per year. That's a return well worth the fees of active management, and the same holds true in small-cap investing.

But there are some asset classes where the median manager can't even beat the benchmark on a gross-of-fee basis. Add in fees on top of that, and active management becomes hard to justify.

Active fund manager performance doesn't stay constant, either. For example, Bank of America found that nearly half of U.S. large-cap equity fund managers outperformed their benchmarks in 2017, the best rate since 2009. Keeping an eye on these trends — this is one area where advisers can help — can be the determining factor in what kind of approach you take for a specific asset in your portfolio.

(More: Active fixed-income management makes sense now more than ever)

The bottom line

Investing is not a world of absolutes. Whoever decided one approach to investing is universally better than others was wrong.

I'm a big believer in building a portfolio that takes both active and passive approaches into account. But I'm a bigger believer in the idea that no two investors require the same approach. Every one of the clients who advisers work with has a different set of needs and goals. It's the job of advisers to find that balance.

Aaron Hodari is a managing director at Schechter, a boutique third-generation wealth advisory and financial services firm in Birmingham, Mich.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended next

Upcoming event

Nov 20


Future of Financial Advice

An innovative conference dedicated to improving the client experience by enhancing digital technology, mainstreaming healthcare and optimizing wealth management strategies.The Future of Financial Advice will provide a forum for... Learn more


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print