Global Investing

The case for active/passive investment

August 20, 2009

Fund managers come back to this recurring question — is it better to invest passively, tracking benchmarks, or manage your money actively, taking risks?

Standard & Poor’s five-year data shows the S&P 500 index — a plain vanilla bet on U.S. stocks — outperformed 62.9 percent of actively managed large cap funds.

The S&P Midcap 400 index outperformed 73.4 percent of active mid-cap funds and the S&P SmallCap 600 outperformed more than one in two actively managed small funds.

On an asset-weighted average however, the results show a more level playing field, with active managers level or ahead of benchmarks in most categories except mid-caps and emerging markets

“Passive management believers can point out that indices have outperformed a majority of active fund managers across all major domestic and international equity categories; with real estate being the lone exception. Conversely, proponents of active fund management can point to the asset weighted averages,” says Srikant Dash, global head of research & design at Standard & Poor’s.

The five-year data is unequivocal for fixed income funds. Across all categories, except emerging market debt, more than three fourths of active managers failed to beat their benchmarks. Similarly, five-year asset weighted average returns are lower for active funds in all but two categories.

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/