Ask yourself if your investing goals and personality traits favor active or passive strategies—or combining the best of both in a smart beta approach.
The explosion of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and automated, or “robo,” strategies using ETFs has cranked up the volume in the debate that pits passive investing against active investing.
But this dispute is already more than 30 years old, originally pushed into the investing vernacular with Burton Malkiel’s seminal book A Random Walk Down Wall Street. And now? The coming of age of the “smart beta” blend of passive investing and active investing brings this three-decade discussion to a new generation of investors.
Proponents extoll the virtues of passive investing versus higher-cost approaches, including actively managed mutual funds and individual stocks and bonds. In Random Walk, Malkiel postulates that if you don’t have time to micromanage your investments, you should simply invest in an index fund. The author also argues that outperformance of an index by actively managed funds is not possible over the long term once you factor in fees and trading costs.
Malkiel’s debate has new life thanks to the rising popularity of automated investing strategies using ETFs by so-called “robo-advisors.” They generally use an asset allocation strategy based on relatively low-cost, index-based ETFs—a passive approach.
The hands-on investing contingency routinely has to field the big question: is it worthwhile to pay for active management?
In general, one can measure large-cap, growth-focused mutual funds versus the broad-based S&P 500 (SPX) and discover that most funds using the SPX as their proxy have not beaten the index. As an example, Bill Miller, the closely followed portfolio manager of the Legg Mason Value Trust, outperformed the SPX for 15 straight years from 1991 to 2005. Although this was an impressive streak, Miller recognized in a 2005 Wall Street Journal article that some of his outperformance was due to luck and timing. The fund went on to underperform in five of the next six years before its skipper’s 2011 retirement. Mathematics ultimately leveled the playing field, although Bill had a great run for more than a dozen years.
Now, does the equation change outside of large-caps and other seemingly straightforward stock strategies? Yes. For instance, some investment professionals argue that active strategies in markets where transparency and liquidity is lower—such as emerging markets—can outperform their benchmarks.
And that begs another question: is there a distinction between skill and luck when it comes to these returns? Eugene Fama and Kenneth French had a little something to say about that in their paper “Luck versus Skill in the Cross-Section of Mutual Fund Returns.” They found that most funds underperformed their respective U.S. stock benchmark by about the same amount as their management fees and other costs. Further, they said, it’s difficult to identify funds that exhibit the skills to consistently outperform the broader market. The original analysis focused on mutual funds versus index funds, but has expanded to asset allocation methods, including whether a strategic or tactical method is better than another.
More recently an approach called smart beta has made some headlines, touted as the best of both worlds. With it, strategic versus tactical asset allocation follows the similar theme of active versus passive investing, but has more to do with asset allocation rather than the selection of a mutual fund versus an index fund. The argument is complicated by the fact that both strategies at various times exhibit outperformance versus the other.
Smart beta proponents recognize and challenge existing benchmark construction, arguing it has inherent flaws because it’s based on price or capitalization. In other words, the non-smart-beta approach overweights larger components in an index, which then has a disproportionate effect on index returns. Smart beta proponents say their approach—by equally weighting securities, selecting the most undervalued component as measured by price/earnings, or by some other empirical method—arguably can provide better returns or lower risk and therefore has a value beyond traditional indexing.
Smart beta strategies are in their infancy and do have detractors, including John Bogle, the legendary index investment proponent. But they may be worthy of investigation, and certainly some observers see smart beta earning a permanent role in the construction of passive strategies mixed with elements of active management.
So, where does that leave us halfway through 2015? All camps are passionate about their respective investment strategies, and it will likely always be that way.
Rather than argue about which strategy is best, the engaged investor might be best served to review his or her goals and personality. If you’re lacking time or desire to do your own homework, maybe a passive approach is best. Meanwhile, those who love to feel the controls in their own grip are likely to go for an active strategy. Or maybe the best option is combining attributes of each: the smart beta approach.
Wherever you land, having a strategy—period—is the first step toward financial freedom.
Because you work just as hard as your portfolio, time is valuable. That’s why we’ve introduced a shorter, more engaging video format for the latest news about Amerivest Core Mutual Fund Portfolios.
Each video includes two parts:
for thinkMoney ®
Financial Communications Society 2016
for Ticker Tape
Content Marketing Awards 2016
Content intended for educational/informational purposes only. Not investment advice, or a recommendation of any security, strategy, or account type.
Be sure to understand all risks involved with each strategy, including commission costs, before attempting to place any trade. Clients must consider all relevant risk factors, including their own personal financial situations, before trading.
Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses before investing. A prospectus, obtained by contacting your broker, contains this and other important information about an investment company. Read carefully before investing.
Mutual funds are subject to market, exchange rate, political, credit, interest rate and prepayment risks, which vary depending on the type of mutual fund.
ETFs can entail risks similar to direct stock ownership, including market, sector, or industry risks. Some ETFs may involve international risk, currency risk, commodity risk, and interest rate risk. Trading prices may not reflect the net asset value of the underlying securities. Commission fees typically apply.
Amerivest Portfolios is an investment advisory service of Amerivest Investment Management, LLC (Amerivest), a registered investment advisor. Brokerage services provided by TD Ameritrade, Inc. Amerivest Investment Management, LLC and TD Ameritrade, Inc. are both wholly owned subsidiaries of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation. Amerivest is a trademark of TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. Amerivest provides nondiscretionary and discretionary advisory services for a fee. Risks applicable to any portfolio are those associated with its underlying securities. For more information, please see the Amerivest Disclosure Brochure (ADV Part 2).
Market volatility, volume, and system availability may delay account access and trade executions.
Past performance of a security or strategy does not guarantee future results or success.
Options are not suitable for all investors as the special risks inherent to options trading may expose investors to potentially rapid and substantial losses. Options trading subject to TD Ameritrade review and approval. Please read Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options before investing in options.
Supporting documentation for any claims, comparisons, statistics, or other technical data will be supplied upon request.
This is not an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction where we are not authorized to do business or where such offer or solicitation would be contrary to the local laws and regulations of that jurisdiction, including, but not limited to persons residing in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, UK, and the countries of the European Union.
TD Ameritrade, Inc., member FINRA/SIPC, and a subsidiary of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation. TD Ameritrade is a trademark jointly owned by TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank. © 2020 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Member SIPC.