Active performance drag

What Is Active Performance Drag?

Active performance drag refers to the reduction in an investment portfolio's returns primarily attributable to the costs and inefficiencies associated with active management. Within the broader field of Investment Performance Analysis, it highlights the difference between a fund manager's gross returns (before expenses) and the net returns received by investors, especially when compared to a relevant benchmark. This drag arises from various factors, including management fees, transaction costs from frequent trading, and the inherent difficulty of consistently outperforming the market after all costs are considered. Effectively, active performance drag quantifies the erosion of potential returns due to the pursuit of outperformance through discretionary security selection or market timing.

History and Origin

The concept of active performance drag gained prominence with the rise of modern portfolio management and the critical examination of the efficacy of active management versus passive investing. While active management has existed as long as professional investment vehicles, the systematic analysis of its costs and their impact on returns became more pronounced from the latter half of the 20th century. Key to this understanding was the academic work that began to rigorously compare actively managed funds with their passive counterparts. One seminal contribution, often cited in discussions of market efficiency and the challenges faced by active managers, is "The Arithmetic of Active Management" by William F. Sharpe in 1991. This paper mathematically demonstrated that, before costs, the average actively managed dollar must perform identically to the average passively managed dollar. Consequently, after accounting for higher fees and trading expenses, the average actively managed dollar would, by definition, underperform the average passively managed dollar. Further academic inquiry, such as research on "Skill and Fees in Active Management" published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, continues to explore how manager skill interacts with fee structures to influence investor outcomes¹⁰. This ongoing research underscores the persistent nature of active performance drag in financial markets.

Key Takeaways

• Active performance drag is the reduction in returns for actively managed portfolios due to costs.
• It encompasses various expenses, including management fees, trading costs, and other operational expenses.
• Despite the goal of outperformance, a significant majority of actively managed funds often underperform their benchmarks after accounting for these costs.
• Active performance drag highlights the importance of cost-efficiency in investment strategies.
• Understanding this concept helps investors make informed decisions about fund selection and asset allocation.

Formula and Calculation

Active performance drag is not typically represented by a single, universally standardized formula, as it is a conceptual measure of eroded returns. However, it can be conceptually understood as the difference between a fund's gross return (performance before fees and expenses) and its net return (performance after fees and expenses), especially when benchmarked against a low-cost, passively managed alternative.

The general idea is:

Alternatively, if considering the components that contribute to the drag:

More precisely, when evaluating an active fund's performance relative to its benchmark, the "active return" is the difference between the fund's return and the benchmark's return. Active performance drag contributes negatively to this active return.

Consider the variables:

• (\text{Benchmark Return}): The total return on investment (ROI)) of the chosen market index or a comparable passive investment.
• (\text{Active Fund Net Return}): The actual return achieved by the actively managed fund after all fees and expenses have been deducted. This is the return received by the investor.
• (\text{Management Fees}): Annual fees paid to fund managers for their services.
• (\text{Trading Costs}): Costs incurred from buying and selling securities within the portfolio, such as commissions and bid-ask spreads.
• (\text{Other Operating Expenses}): Administrative costs, legal fees, marketing expenses (like 12b-1 fees), and other costs associated with running the fund.

Interpreting the Active Performance Drag

Interpreting active performance drag involves assessing how much the costs and operational inefficiencies of an actively managed investment detract from its ability to outperform a chosen benchmark. A significant active performance drag indicates that the expenses are heavily eroding the fund's potential to generate alpha—excess returns above what would be expected given the risk taken.

For investors, a high active performance drag suggests that the value added by the fund manager's active decisions might not be sufficient to compensate for the higher costs. For instance, if an active fund's gross return before fees matches its benchmark, but its net return significantly lags due to high operating expenses and trading costs, it demonstrates substantial active performance drag. This outcome is frequently observed across various asset classes. According to Morningstar's Active/Passive Barometer, a recurring report, a considerable majority of active funds in public markets underperformed their passive peers over various long-term periods, with less than 22% of U.S. actively managed mutual funds and Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)) surviving and beating their average indexed peer over the decade through 2024. ⁹This continued underperformance, particularly in large-cap equity categories, reinforces the impact of active performance drag.
⁷, ⁸

Hypothetical Example

Consider two hypothetical investment options: Fund A, an actively managed U.S. large-cap equity mutual fund, and Fund B, a passively managed S&P 500 index fund. Both funds aim to track or outperform the S&P 500.

Scenario: Over one year, the S&P 500 index returns 10%.

• Fund A (Actively Managed):

  • Gross Return (before fees and costs): 10.5%
  • Annual Expense Ratio (management fees, administrative costs): 1.0%
  • Estimated Trading Costs (due to high portfolio turnover): 0.5%
  • Net Return = Gross Return - Expense Ratio - Trading Costs
  • Net Return = 10.5% - 1.0% - 0.5% = 9.0%

• Fund B (Passively Managed Index Fund):

  • Gross Return (before fees): 9.9% (slightly less than index due to tracking error)
  • Annual Expense Ratio: 0.1%
  • Estimated Trading Costs (due to low portfolio turnover): 0.05%
  • Net Return = Gross Return - Expense Ratio - Trading Costs
  • Net Return = 9.9% - 0.1% - 0.05% = 9.75%

In this example:

• Fund A's active performance drag relative to the benchmark return (10%) is 1.0% (10% - 9.0%). This reflects the costs that prevented it from outperforming its benchmark, even with a slightly higher gross return.
• Fund B's net return (9.75%) is closer to the benchmark (10%), with a minimal drag of 0.25%.

This hypothetical illustration demonstrates how active performance drag can significantly reduce the actual returns an investor receives, even if the active manager exhibits some gross investment skill.

Practical Applications

Active performance drag is a critical consideration in various practical financial applications, particularly in the selection and evaluation of investment vehicles.

1. Fund Selection: Investors and financial advisors often use the concept of active performance drag to compare actively managed funds against passive alternatives like index funds or Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)). Funds with high expense ratios and frequent trading activity are likely to experience greater active performance drag, making it challenging for them to consistently outperform benchmarks. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandates transparent fee disclosures for mutual funds, enabling investors to assess these costs.
   ⁶2. Portfolio Construction: When constructing a diversified investment portfolio, understanding active performance drag influences the allocation between active and passive strategies. In highly efficient markets, where generating alpha is particularly difficult, investors may lean more towards low-cost passive investments to minimize drag. Conversely, in less efficient markets or specialized asset classes, the potential for active managers to overcome performance drag and add value might be greater.
2. Performance Attribution: Investment performance evaluation involves analyzing the sources of a portfolio's returns. Active performance drag is a component of this analysis, helping to distinguish whether underperformance is due to poor security selection, adverse market conditions, or simply excessive costs. Regular performance attribution helps investors and fund managers identify areas for improvement.
3. Fee Negotiations and Regulation: Awareness of active performance drag empowers investors to scrutinize fees more closely. Regulators, such as the SEC, also focus on fee transparency and the potential for certain fee structures (e.g., 12b-1 fees) to contribute to performance drag without commensurate benefits for investors.
   ⁵
   Recent data consistently highlights the practical impact of active performance drag. For instance, reports indicate that over 80% to 90% of active managers in public equity markets underperform their respective benchmarks over a 10-year horizon, underscoring the pervasive nature of this drag.
   ⁴

Limitations and Criticisms

While active performance drag is a widely accepted concept in investment performance analysis, it does have limitations and criticisms.

One key limitation is that comparing an actively managed fund directly to a passive benchmark might not fully capture the active manager's intent or the specific risks taken. Active managers aim to generate alpha by deviating from the index, and a simple benchmark comparison may not account for the manager's ability to reduce risk or protect capital during downturns, which could justify higher fees in some contexts. Critics argue that evaluating active management solely on its ability to beat a broad market index, especially after costs, oversimplifies the role of skilled management.

Furthermore, some academic research suggests that while average active management tends to underperform, there can be periods or specific market segments where active strategies deliver value, potentially justifying their fees. However, consistently identifying such managers in advance remains a significant challenge, and the higher costs associated with active management often make it difficult to overcome the statistical hurdles of outperformance over long periods.
³
Another criticism revolves around the impact of investor behavioral biases. Even if an active manager generates strong gross returns, investors' tendency to buy high and sell low can amplify active performance drag on their personal returns. This "behavioral drag" can cause investors to realize even lower returns than the already net-of-fee performance reported by the fund itself.
²
Ultimately, while the existence of active performance drag is empirically supported by numerous studies showing active funds' underperformance against passive benchmarks over time, particularly in liquid markets like U.S. large-cap equities, the debate often centers on whether the potential benefits of active management in certain conditions outweigh the almost guaranteed drag from higher expense ratios and transaction costs.

Active Performance Drag vs. Expense Ratio

Active performance drag and expense ratio are related but distinct concepts in investment performance analysis. Understanding their difference is crucial for investors evaluating managed funds.

While the expense ratio is a major contributor to active performance drag, it is not the sole cause. An active fund might have a relatively low expense ratio but still experience significant active performance drag due to high transaction costs resulting from frequent trading or poor execution. Conversely, a fund with a slightly higher expense ratio might generate enough gross alpha to overcome this drag, though this is rare over long periods. Therefore, active performance drag is the result of various cost factors, including the expense ratio, manifesting as a shortfall in returns compared to a passive alternative.

FAQs

What causes active performance drag?

Active performance drag is primarily caused by the various costs associated with active management, including explicit management fees, trading costs (such as commissions and bid-ask spreads from frequent buying and selling of securities), administrative expenses, and marketing fees. Additionally, the inherent difficulty of consistently outperforming the market can contribute to this drag if the gross returns generated by the fund managers are not sufficient to cover these expenses.

Is active performance drag only about fees?

No, active performance drag is not only about fees. While direct fees, like the expense ratio and 12b-1 fees, are significant components, it also includes less obvious costs such as trading expenses (commissions, market impact costs) and the opportunity cost of underperforming a low-cost benchmark. It represents the total negative impact of active management on net returns.

How can investors minimize active performance drag?

Investors can minimize active performance drag by choosing low-cost investment options, such as index funds and passively managed Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)), which inherently have lower fees and trading costs. When considering actively managed funds, look for those with competitive expense ratios and a history of demonstrating consistent risk-adjusted return that justifies their fees over the long term. Diversifying across different asset classes and investment styles can also help manage overall portfolio costs.

Does active performance drag mean active management is always bad?

Not necessarily, but it highlights the significant challenge active managers face. While the average active fund tends to underperform its passive benchmark after accounting for active performance drag, there can be skilled managers who deliver consistent alpha in specific markets or conditions. However, identifying these managers in advance is difficult, and their outperformance must be substantial enough to overcome the drag caused by their higher costs.