Landing page

What Is Active Management?

Active management is an investment strategy where a fund manager or team makes specific investment decisions to outperform a designated benchmark index. This approach, falling under the broader category of portfolio theory, involves actively buying and selling securities with the goal of generating superior returns, known as alpha, after accounting for risk. Active managers believe that markets are not perfectly efficient and that skilled research and analysis can identify mispriced assets or anticipate market trends.

History and Origin

The roots of active management are as old as organized investing itself, with individuals and institutions always seeking to gain an advantage through insightful decisions. However, the formal analysis and critique of active management gained significant academic traction with the emergence of modern financial economics. A pivotal moment was the publication of Michael C. Jensen's 1968 paper, "The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964." In this seminal work, Jensen introduced a risk-adjusted measure of portfolio performance, now widely known as Jensen's Alpha, to assess a manager's forecasting ability. His findings, which suggested that many mutual funds did not consistently outperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis after fees, sparked considerable debate and laid foundational groundwork for discussions around market efficiency.

⁴## Key Takeaways

• Active management seeks to outperform a benchmark index by actively selecting securities.
• It relies on the belief that markets are not perfectly efficient and that skilled managers can identify mispricings.
• Success is often measured by "alpha," the excess return achieved relative to the risk taken, compared to a benchmark.
• Active strategies typically involve higher transaction costs and fees than passive approaches.
• Despite its appeal, consistently generating alpha through active management has proven challenging for many practitioners over long periods.

Formula and Calculation

Active management does not have a single defining formula for its execution, as it encompasses a variety of strategies. However, the success of active management is typically measured using performance metrics that quantify the "alpha" generated. Jensen's Alpha is a widely used metric that calculates the excess return of a portfolio above the return predicted by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).

The formula for Jensen's Alpha ((\alpha)) is:

Where:

• (R_p) = The realized return of the portfolio or mutual fund.
• (R_f) = The risk-free rate of return (e.g., U.S. Treasury bill rate).
• (\beta_p) = The portfolio's beta (a measure of its systematic risk relative to the market).
• (R_m) = The realized return of the market benchmark.
• ((R_m - R_f)) = The market risk premium.

A positive alpha indicates that the portfolio has outperformed its expected return based on its level of systematic risk, suggesting successful active management. Conversely, a negative alpha implies underperformance.

Interpreting Active Management

Interpreting active management involves evaluating whether a manager's decisions add value beyond what could be achieved by simply holding a diversified market portfolio. A key aspect of this interpretation is focusing on risk-adjusted return. An active manager's goal is not merely to achieve high returns, but to achieve high returns for the level of risk undertaken. If a manager earns 15% but takes on significantly more risk than the market, their performance might not be superior to a market return of 10% with lower risk.

Successful active management often suggests the manager has strong skills in financial analysis, security valuation, and market timing. However, factors such as fees, trading costs, and market dynamics can significantly erode any gross alpha generated. Therefore, the interpretation must always consider net returns to the investor.

Hypothetical Example

Consider an active fund manager, Sarah, who manages a large-cap equity fund with a specific goal: to outperform the S&P 500 Index. Her fund has an annual management fee of 0.75%.

In a given year, the S&P 500 Index returns 10%. Sarah's fund, through her active stock selection and sector allocation decisions, generates a gross return of 11.5% before accounting for fees.

1. Gross Alpha Calculation:
   Sarah's gross return (11.5%) minus the S&P 500 return (10%) equals 1.5%. This is the initial outperformance before fees.

2. Net Return Calculation:
   From her 11.5% gross return, we subtract the 0.75% management fee: (11.5% - 0.75% = 10.75%).

3. Net Alpha Calculation:
   Sarah's net return (10.75%) minus the S&P 500 return (10%) equals 0.75%.

In this hypothetical example, Sarah's active management successfully generated a net alpha of 0.75% for her investors after fees. This demonstrates how active stock picking and asset allocation decisions can potentially lead to outperformance.

Practical Applications

Active management is prevalent across various financial sectors and investment vehicles:

• Mutual Funds: Many traditional mutual funds are actively managed, where fund managers research and select securities to construct a portfolio aiming to beat a benchmark.
• Hedge Funds: These funds almost exclusively employ active management strategies, often using complex techniques like short selling, leverage, and derivatives to generate absolute returns regardless of market direction.
• Institutional Asset Management: Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds often allocate portions of their capital to active managers who specialize in various asset classes or strategies.
• Individual Stock Picking: Individual investors who research companies and make their own buying and selling decisions are, in essence, engaging in active management.
• Fixed Income: While often perceived as less volatile, fixed income portfolios can also be actively managed through duration management, credit selection, and yield curve positioning.

Despite its widespread application, the challenge of consistently outperforming passive strategies is significant. For instance, Morningstar's U.S. Active/Passive Barometer report for year-end 2024 indicated that only a small percentage of actively managed funds across various categories managed to both survive and outperform their passive counterparts over longer periods.

³## Limitations and Criticisms

Active management faces several limitations and criticisms:

• Difficulty in Consistent Outperformance: A primary critique is the challenge of consistently beating the market over the long term, especially after accounting for fees and trading costs. The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) posits that market prices already reflect all available information, making it impossible to consistently achieve excess returns. While some argue that active management is crucial for creating market efficiency, others contend that beating the market is exceedingly difficult. R²esearch from firms like Research Affiliates highlights that active management, unlike rules-based strategies, can be opaque, come with high fees, and often underperform benchmarks, particularly on a net-of-fee basis.
  *¹ Higher Fees and Expenses: Actively managed funds typically charge higher management fees and incur greater transaction costs due to frequent trading. These costs can significantly erode potential returns, making it harder to outperform their benchmarks net of fees.
• Manager Risk: The performance of an actively managed fund is heavily dependent on the skill and judgment of the fund manager. Changes in management, investment style drift, or poor decision-making can negatively impact returns.
• Behavioral Finance Biases: Active managers, like all humans, can be susceptible to cognitive biases such as overconfidence, herd mentality, or anchoring, which may lead to suboptimal investment decisions.
• Tracking Error: Active funds often deviate significantly from their benchmark, leading to periods of underperformance, which can be challenging for investors to tolerate.

Active Management vs. Passive Investing

Active management and passive investing represent two fundamental approaches to portfolio construction and investment strategy. The core difference lies in their objectives and methodologies.

While active management strives for alpha through skillful decision-making, passive investing aims to capture market returns efficiently and cost-effectively by simply tracking a broad market index. The debate between these two approaches is ongoing in portfolio management, with both having proponents and detractors.

FAQs

Is active management suitable for all investors?

Active management may be suitable for investors who believe in a manager's ability to consistently generate alpha and who are comfortable with potentially higher fees and greater tracking error relative to a benchmark. For many investors seeking broad market exposure with lower costs, passive investing through index funds or ETFs may be a more appropriate strategy.

How are active managers compensated?

Active managers typically receive compensation through a base management fee, usually a percentage of assets under management (AUM). Some may also receive a performance fee, which is a percentage of the alpha generated above a certain hurdle rate or benchmark.

Can active management provide better diversification?

While active managers can diversify their portfolios across various securities and asset classes, the intent is often to concentrate investments in perceived undervalued opportunities. Traditional index funds, by their nature, often provide broad diversification by holding all or a representative sample of securities in a given market index.

Does active management lead to higher returns?

Not necessarily. While the goal of active management is to achieve higher returns than a benchmark, many studies show that a significant portion of actively managed funds fail to consistently outperform their benchmarks over long periods, especially after accounting for fees and expenses.